The role of oncologists in multidisciplinary cancer teams in the UK: an untapped resource for team leadership?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the UK, cancer care is managed via multidisciplinary teams (MDT). Core members of these teams are typically surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and clinical nurse specialists (with other health care professionals potentially present). Good teamwork, including team communication and leadership, has been shown to be a prerequisite for safe care delivery in other health care contexts, but cancer MDT team working processes are yet to be fully explored. This study aimed to assess the self-perceived contribution of oncologists to MDTs, with emphasis on their potential role as team leaders. METHODS: Data were collected at the British Uro-oncology Group 6th Annual Meeting (Sep 11-12 2009, York, UK). Respondents completed various items related to their perceived contribution to MDTs, aspects of current and potential MDT leadership, team decision making in these meetings, and also demographic information. RESULTS: Seventy-seven oncologists attended the meeting, of whom 61 fully completed the survey (response rate 79%). Oncologists reported that their contribution to the MDT discussion carries equal weight to those of surgeons, radiologists and pathologists. Whereas 83% of respondents reported that MDT chairmanship could rotate, only 39% reported that it does in their own MDTs. More than 90% of respondents thought that oncologists (clinical or medical) could chair these meetings, but only 25% of them had ever chaired their own MDT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high level of contribution to MDTs and the respect of their colleagues, oncologists are not taking leadership roles within MDTs at the level that they expect. This study raises the question of whether a re-evaluation the leadership of MDTs is required with clinicians from a variety of specialities being given opportunities to develop skills necessary to lead cancer MDTs and improve team performance and ultimately cancer care

Cancer survival in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian children: what is the difference?

Purpose: This study assessed variation in childhood cancer survival by Indigenous status in Australia, and explored the effect of place of residence and socio-economic disadvantage on survival. Methods: All children diagnosed with cancer during 1997-2007 were identified through the Australian Pediatric Cancer Registry. Cox regression analysis was used to assess the adjusted differences in survival. Results: Overall, 5-years survival was 75.0 % for Indigenous children (n = 196) and 82.3 % for non-Indigenous children (n = 6,376, p = 0.008). Compared to other children, Indigenous cases had 1.36 times the risk of dying within 5 years of diagnosis after adjustments for rurality of residence, socio-economic disadvantage, cancer diagnostic group, and year of diagnosis (95 % CI 1.01-1.82). No significant survival differential was found for leukemias or tumors of the central nervous system; Indigenous children were 1.83 times more likely (95 % CI 1.22-2.74) than other children to die within 5 years from 'other tumors' (e.g., lymphomas, neuroblastoma). Among children who lived in 'remote/very remote/outer regional' areas, and among children with a subgroup of 'other tumors' that were staged, being Indigenous significantly increased the likelihood of death (HR = 1.69, 95 % CI 1.10-2.59 and HR = 2.99, 95 % CI 1.35-6.62, respectively); no significant differences by Indigenous status were seen among children with stage data missing. Conclusions: Differences in place of residence, socio-economic disadvantage, and cancer diagnostic group only partially explain the survival disadvantage of Indigenous children. Other reasons underlying the disparities in childhood cancer outcomes by Indigenous status are yet to be determined, but may involve factors such as differences in treatment