Skip to main content

Table 1 Description of the variables of the adapted measure

From: Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study

Variable (Likert-)Scale Description
Quality of case history 5 Fluent, comprehensive case history:
Listing of name, age, major health problem, family diseases, medications
3 Partial case history
1 No case history
Quality of radiological information 5 Radiological images were shown and discussed during case discussion
3 Radiological information from a report/account
1 No provision of radiological information
Quality of information on comorbidities 5 Comprehensive first-hand knowledge of past medical history or performance status
Listing of further diseases
3 Vague first-hand knowledge or good second-hand knowledge of past medical history or performance status
1 No information on past medical history or performance status
Palliative case (no/yes) 0 The case was not explicitly defined as palliative
1 The case was explicitly defined as palliative
Quality of psychosocial information 5 First-hand knowledge and detailed consideration of information on patient’s personal and social circumstances:
- profession
- marital status, children
- living arrangements
First-hand knowledge and detailed consideration of patient’s psychological issues:
- psychological problems
- family problems
- psychological disorders
3 Vague first-hand knowledge or good second-hand knowledge of patients’ personal circumstances, social and psychological issues
1 No information on patients’ personal circumstances, social and psychological issues
Quality of information on the patient‘s views 5 Comprehensive knowledge and detailed consideration of patient’s wishes or opinions regarding treatment:
Someone who has met the patient presents their views/preferences/holistic needs
3 Vague first-hand knowledge or good second-hand knowledge of patient’s wishes or opinions regarding treatment
1 No information on patient’s wishes or opinions regarding treatment
Number of active participants Number of active participants contributing to the discussion
Quality of MDTM chair behavior 5 Good leadership enhanced team discussion and decision making:
- Leader encouraged full participation of all team members
- Showed assertive behavior
- Demonstrated ability to resolve conflict
- Monitored and coordinated contributions of team members
3 Leadership neither enhanced nor impeded team discussion and decision making
1 Poor/inadequate leadership impeded team discussion and decision making:
- Interrupted team members or behaved in a disrespectful manner
- Participated reluctantly
- Avoided conflict
- Leader could not be identified
Quality of team behavior 5 Good communication between team members:
- Open and inclusive team discussion
- Offering of constructive criticism
- Climate of respect and equality, harmony within the group
- Team engagement
- Group cohesion (more than group of individuals)
3 Communication between team members neither good nor poor
1 Poor communication between team members:
- Reluctant contributions of team members
- Interruption of team members
- Destructive team discussion
- Hostile climate and disharmony within the group
- Poor team engagement and group cohesion
Medical and treatment uncertainty during the case discussion 5 Team members showed medical and treatment uncertainty about best treatment decision
3 Some medical and treatment uncertainty about decision was shown, but decision for one option seemed clear
1 Team members seemed to have same opinion regarding treatment decision, no further treatment options mentioned
Recommendation reached? Y Clear recommendation about treatment(s) was offered
D Recommendation was deferred to next MDTM
N No recommendation or recommendation unclear
Number of recommendations Number of treatment recommendations
Free text Additional observer comments
Minutes per case Minutes spent on discussing each case