Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-08-2015 | Original Article

Multidisciplinary team meetings in urogynaecology

Authors: Deepa Gopinath, Swati Jha

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 8/2015

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The concept of multidisciplinary team (MDT) is well accepted in the current National Health Service (NHS) and is considered good practice for the management of chronic conditions. There has been a recent drive to have MDTs in managing women with incontinence and complex prolapse as a result of recommendations by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) etc. Currently, there are no data on the outcome of case discussion at urogynaecology MDTs. The aim of this study was to review the clinical impact of discussion of a select group of cases at an urogynaecology MDT and review the clinical literature to justify the MDT approach.

Methods

MDT proformas of cases discussed from October 2012 to December 2013 were reviewed. Outcomes of the MDT were compared with recommendations at the initial consultation. This included change in management plan, type of surgery and surgeon as well as time delay due to MDT discussion.

Results

One hundred six proformas were available for analysis. Age range was 23–89 (58) years. Average time from clinic visit to MDT discussion was 8.32 + 5.9 days. The MDT recommended a change in management plan in 31 cases (29.3 %), with 11 cases (10.4 %) resulting in alternative surgery and 1 case (0.9 %) with an alternative surgeon. In 18.5 % of cases, MDT discussion formulated the initial management plan.

Conclusions

Case discussions at our MDT provide an effective clinical forum to formulate management plans for complex cases. The decision-making process is made robust, without significant impact on waiting time. Investment in setting up MDTs has financial implications but provides patient benefit.

Available only for authorised users

Bezerra LRPS, Vasconcelos NJA, Vasconcelos CTM et al (2014) Prevalence of unreported bowel symptoms in women with pelvic floor dysfunction and the impact on their quality of life. Int Urogynecol J 25(7):927–933PubMed

Selcuk S, Cam C, Asoglu MR, Karateke A (2012) The effect of concealed concomitant anal incontinence symptoms in patients with urinary incontinence on their quality of life. Int Urogynecol J 23(12):1781–1784PubMedCrossRef

Markland AD, Richter HE, Kenton KS et al (2009) Associated factors and the impact of fecal incontinence in women with urge urinary incontinence: from the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network’s Behavior Enhances Drug Reduction of Incontinence study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(4):424.e1–424.e8CrossRef

Klingele CJ, Bharucha AE, Fletcher JG et al (2005) Pelvic organ prolapse in defecatory disorders. Obstet Gynecol 106(2):315–320. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000171104.72972.34 PubMedCrossRef

Morris E, Haward RA, Gilthorpe MS, Craigs C, Forman D (2006) The impact of the Calman-Hine report on the processes and outcomes of care for Yorkshire’s colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer 95(8):979–985PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

NICE (2013) Urinary incontinence in women. The management of urinary incontinence in women. National Institute of Clinical Excellence CG171. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London

Department of Health (2013) Quality in the new health system-maintaining and improving quality from April 2013. National Quality Board. www.gov.uk. Last accessed 18 Jan 2013

MHRA. Responsibilities of the parties involved in the manufacture, regulation and surgical provision of vaginal meshes. Vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse 2012. Accessed 10 Sep 2014

Adams E, Hill S, Iskander M et al. (2012) Standards for service provision in urogynaecology units. The British Society of Urogynaecology. www.bsug.org.uk

10.

England N (2013) E10 NHS standard contract for complex gynaecology: recurrent prolapse and urinary incontinence. NHS England. www.England.nhs.uk

11.

Radley SC, Jones GL, Tanguy EA, Stevens VG, Nelson C, Mathers NJ (2006) Computer interviewing in urogynaecology: concept, development and psychometric testing of an electronic pelvic floor assessment questionnaire in primary and secondary care. BJOG 113(2):231–238PubMedCrossRef

12.

Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R et al (2010) Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence? BMJ 340:c951

13.

Simcock R, Heaford A (2012) Costs of multidisciplinary teams in cancer are small in relation to benefits. BMJ 344:e3700

14.

Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H et al (2001) The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer 91(7):1231–1237PubMedCrossRef

15.

Gopinath D, Radley SC (2013) Complications of polypropylene mesh in prolapse surgery: an update. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 23(10):300–306CrossRef

16.

NHS inform (2014) Transvaginal tapes and meshes. http://www.nhsinform.co.uk/behind-the-headlines/special-reports/2014/06/transvaginal-tapes-and-meshes. Accessed 10 Sep 2014

17.

Sidhom MA, Poulsen MG (2006) Multidisciplinary care in oncology: medicolegal implications of group decisions. Lancet Oncol 7(11):951–954PubMedCrossRef

18.

Department of Health (2012) Referral to treatment consultant-led waiting times. www.gov.uk. Accessed 11 Sep 2014

19.

Maskell G (2013) Commentary on: does every patient need to be discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting? Clin Radiol 68(8):760–761PubMedCrossRef

20.

Jalil R, Ahmed M, Green JSA, Sevdalis N (2013) Factors that can make an impact on decision-making and decision implementation in cancer multidisciplinary teams: an interview study of the provider perspective. Int J Surg 11(5):389–394PubMedCrossRef

21.

Ruhstaller T, Roe H, Thürlimann B, Nicoll JJ (2006) The multidisciplinary meeting: an indispensable aid to communication between different specialities. Eur J Cancer 42(15):2459–2462PubMedCrossRef

22.

Sharma RA, Shah K, Glatstein E (2009) Multidisciplinary team meetings: what does the future hold for the flies raised in Wittgenstein’s bottle? Lancet Oncol 10(2):98–99PubMedCrossRef

23.

Fleissig A, Jenkins V, Catt S, Fallowfield L (2006) Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK? Lancet Oncol 7(11):935–943PubMedCrossRef

24.

Wagstaff A (2006) The dream team. When will we make it a reality? Cancer World (12):16–26

Title: Multidisciplinary team meetings in urogynaecology
Authors: Deepa Gopinath
Swati Jha
Publication date: 01-08-2015
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2662-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Multidisciplinary team meetings in urogynaecology

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2015

How much impact has the impact factor?

Transvaginal repair of stage III–IV cystocele using a lightweight mesh: safety and 36-month outcome

Urogynecology digest

High uterosacral vault suspension vs Sacrocolpopexy for treating apical defects: a randomized controlled trial with twelve months follow-up

Surgery for urinary incontinence in women 65 years and older: a systematic review

General or Spinal Anaesthetic for Vaginal Surgery in Pelvic Floor Disorders (GOSSIP): a feasibility randomised controlled trial