Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKinnear, Ned-
dc.contributor.authorHennessey, Derek-
dc.contributor.authorBolton, Damien-
dc.contributor.authorSengupta, Shomik-
dc.identifier.citationEpworth Research Institute Research Week 2017; Poster 20: pp 43en_US
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: A patient newly diagnosed with cancer will need input from a range of medical specialties and allied health professionals. Such multi-disciplinary care (MDC) allows clinicians with a range of expertise to collaborate in patient care. This allows balanced decision making and cross-pollination of knowledge. The aim of this study was to assess the implementation of the consensus plans made at multi-disciplinary meetings (MDM), which underpins the effectiveness of MDC. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients discussed at the uro-oncology MDM at our institution between 1 January to 30 June 2015. Hospital databases were used to retrieve all urological oncologic procedures during the enrolment period and rates of referral for MDM discussion following a new histological diagnosis of malignancy, categorized by tumour type, were assessed. Patient records were interrogated to confirm MDM plan implementation, with the primary outcomes examined being completion of MDM plan within 3 months and factors preventing implementation. RESULTS: During the enrolment period, from 291 uro-oncological procedures 240 yielded malignant histology which 160 (67%) were discussed at the MDM. Overall, 202 patients, including 32 females were discussed at the uro-oncology MDM. MDM consensus plans were implemented in 184 (91.1%) patients. Reasons for deviation from the MDM plan included delay in care, patient deterioration or comorbidities, patient preference, consultant decision, loss to follow up and change in patient scenario due to additional new information from re-staging. CONCLUSION: The MDM is increasingly important in the care of uro-oncology patients, with about two-thirds of new diagnoses currently captured. Currently, there appear to be few barriers to the implementation of consensus plans, with nearly all patients undergoing the recommended management.en_US
dc.subjectMultidisciplinary Careen_US
dc.subjectMultidisciplinary Meetingsen_US
dc.subjectImplementation Of Consensus Plansen_US
dc.subjectCross-Pollination Of Knowledgeen_US
dc.subjectCancer Patientsen_US
dc.subjectPatient Careen_US
dc.subjectUrological Oncologic Proceduresen_US
dc.subjectHistological Diagnosis of Malignancyen_US
dc.subjectFactors Preventing Implementationen_US
dc.subjectDelay In Careen_US
dc.subjectPatient Deterioration Comorbiditiesen_US
dc.subjectPatient Preferencesen_US
dc.subjectConsultant Decisionsen_US
dc.subjectLoss To Follow Upen_US
dc.subjectCancer Services Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.subjectUroRenal, Vascular Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.titleImplementation rates of uro-oncology multi-disciplinary meeting decisions.en_US
dc.typeConference Posteren_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urology, Austin Healthen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourneen_US
dc.type.studyortrialRetrospective studiesen_US
dc.description.conferencenameEpworth Research Institute Research Week 2017en_US
dc.description.conferencelocationEpworth Research Institute, Victoria, Australiaen_US
Appears in Collections:Cancer Services
UroRenal, Vascular

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.