Table 1 Description of the variables of the adapted measure
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 | |