A Mathematical Model of the Thermo-Anemometric Flowmeter

A thermo-anemometric flowmeter design and the principles of its work are presented in the article. A mathematical model of the temperature field in a stream of biofuel is proposed. This model allows one to determine the fuel consumption with high accuracy. Numerical modeling of the heater heat balance in the fuel flow of a thermo-anemometric flowmeter is conducted and the results are analyzed. Methods for increasing the measurement speed and accuracy of a thermo-anemometric flowmeter are proposed

A multicentre cross-sectional observational study of cancer multidisciplinary teams:Analysis of team decision making

Background Multidisciplinary teams (MDT) formulate expert informed treatment recommendations for people with cancer. We set out to examine how the factors proposed by the functional perspective of group decision making (DM), that is, interaction process, internal factors (factors emanating from within the group such as group size), external circumstances (factors coming from the outside of the team), and case‐complexity affect the quality of MDT decision making. Methods This was a cross‐sectional observational study. Three cancer MDTs were recruited with 44 members overall and 30 of their weekly meetings filmed. Validated observational instruments were used to measure quality of DM, interactions, and complexity of 822 case discussions. Results The full regression model with the variables proposed by the functional perspective was significant, R2 = 0.52, F(20, 801) = 43.47, P < .001, adjusted R2 = 0.51. Positive predictors of DM quality were asking questions (P = .001), providing answers (P = .001), team size (P = .007), gender balance (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), while negative socioemotional reactions (P = .007), gender imbalance (P = .003), logistical issues (P = .001), time‐workload pressures (P = .002), and time spent in the meeting (P = .001) were negative predictors. Second half of the meetings also saw significant decrease in the DM quality (P = .001), interactions (P = .001), group size (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), and an increase in negative socioemotional reactions (P = .001) and time‐workload pressures (P = .001). Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to attempt to assess the factors proposed by the functional perspective in cancer MDTs. One novel finding is the effect of sociocognitive factors on team DM quality, while another is the cognitive‐catch 22 effect: while the case discussions are significantly simpler in the second half of the meeting, there is significantly less time left to discuss the remaining cases, further adding to the cognitive taxation in teams who are now rapidly attempting to close their time‐workload gap. Implications are discussed in relation to quality and safety

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