Multidisciplinary team meetings in urogynaecology.
Identifieur interne : 001C32 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 001C31; suivant : 001C33Multidisciplinary team meetings in urogynaecology.
Auteurs : Deepa Gopinath [Oman] ; Swati JhaSource :
- International urogynecology journal [ 1433-3023 ] ; 2015.
Descripteurs français
- KwdFr :
- Adulte (MeSH), Adulte d'âge moyen (MeSH), Communication interdisciplinaire (MeSH), Femelle (MeSH), Gynécologie (MeSH), Humains (MeSH), Incontinence urinaire (thérapie), Jeune adulte (MeSH), Planification des soins du patient (organisation et administration), Processus de groupe (MeSH), Prolapsus d'organe pelvien (chirurgie), Sujet âgé (MeSH), Sujet âgé de 80 ans ou plus (MeSH), Urologie (MeSH), Équipe soignante (organisation et administration), Études rétrospectives (MeSH).
- MESH :
- chirurgie : Prolapsus d'organe pelvien.
- organisation et administration : Planification des soins du patient, Équipe soignante.
- thérapie : Incontinence urinaire.
- Adulte, Adulte d'âge moyen, Communication interdisciplinaire, Femelle, Gynécologie, Humains, Jeune adulte, Processus de groupe, Sujet âgé, Sujet âgé de 80 ans ou plus, Urologie, Études rétrospectives.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Adult (MeSH), Aged (MeSH), Aged, 80 and over (MeSH), Female (MeSH), Group Processes (MeSH), Gynecology (MeSH), Humans (MeSH), Interdisciplinary Communication (MeSH), Middle Aged (MeSH), Patient Care Planning (organization & administration), Patient Care Team (organization & administration), Pelvic Organ Prolapse (surgery), Retrospective Studies (MeSH), Urinary Incontinence (therapy), Urology (MeSH), Young Adult (MeSH).
- MESH :
- organization & administration : Patient Care Planning, Patient Care Team.
- surgery : Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
- therapy : Urinary Incontinence.
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Group Processes, Gynecology, Humans, Interdisciplinary Communication, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Urology, Young Adult.
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.
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-015-2662-4
PubMed: 25749717
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Multidisciplinary team meetings in urogynaecology.</title><author><name sortKey="Gopinath, Deepa" sort="Gopinath, Deepa" uniqKey="Gopinath D" first="Deepa" last="Gopinath">Deepa Gopinath</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Stepping Hill Hospital, Poplar Grove, Stockport, SK2 7JE, UK, deeps781@hotmail.com.</nlm:affiliation><country wicri:rule="url">Oman</country><wicri:regionArea>Stepping Hill Hospital, Poplar Grove, Stockport, SK2 7JE, UK</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>UK</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jha, Swati" sort="Jha, Swati" uniqKey="Jha S" first="Swati" last="Jha">Swati Jha</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2015">2015</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:25749717</idno><idno type="pmid">25749717</idno><idno type="doi">10.1007/s00192-015-2662-4</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Corpus">001D93</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">001D93</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">001D93</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Curation">001D93</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">001D93</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Multidisciplinary team meetings in urogynaecology.</title><author><name sortKey="Gopinath, Deepa" sort="Gopinath, Deepa" uniqKey="Gopinath D" first="Deepa" last="Gopinath">Deepa Gopinath</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Stepping Hill Hospital, Poplar Grove, Stockport, SK2 7JE, UK, deeps781@hotmail.com.</nlm:affiliation><country wicri:rule="url">Oman</country><wicri:regionArea>Stepping Hill Hospital, Poplar Grove, Stockport, SK2 7JE, UK</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>UK</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jha, Swati" sort="Jha, Swati" uniqKey="Jha S" first="Swati" last="Jha">Swati Jha</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">International urogynecology journal</title><idno type="eISSN">1433-3023</idno><imprint><date when="2015" type="published">2015</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult (MeSH)</term><term>Aged (MeSH)</term><term>Aged, 80 and over (MeSH)</term><term>Female (MeSH)</term><term>Group Processes (MeSH)</term><term>Gynecology (MeSH)</term><term>Humans (MeSH)</term><term>Interdisciplinary Communication (MeSH)</term><term>Middle Aged (MeSH)</term><term>Patient Care Planning (organization & administration)</term><term>Patient Care Team (organization & administration)</term><term>Pelvic Organ Prolapse (surgery)</term><term>Retrospective Studies (MeSH)</term><term>Urinary Incontinence (therapy)</term><term>Urology (MeSH)</term><term>Young Adult (MeSH)</term></keywords><keywords scheme="KwdFr" xml:lang="fr"><term>Adulte (MeSH)</term><term>Adulte d'âge moyen (MeSH)</term><term>Communication interdisciplinaire (MeSH)</term><term>Femelle (MeSH)</term><term>Gynécologie (MeSH)</term><term>Humains (MeSH)</term><term>Incontinence urinaire (thérapie)</term><term>Jeune adulte (MeSH)</term><term>Planification des soins du patient (organisation et administration)</term><term>Processus de groupe (MeSH)</term><term>Prolapsus d'organe pelvien (chirurgie)</term><term>Sujet âgé (MeSH)</term><term>Sujet âgé de 80 ans ou plus (MeSH)</term><term>Urologie (MeSH)</term><term>Équipe soignante (organisation et administration)</term><term>Études rétrospectives (MeSH)</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="chirurgie" xml:lang="fr"><term>Prolapsus d'organe pelvien</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="organisation et administration" xml:lang="fr"><term>Planification des soins du patient</term><term>Équipe soignante</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="organization & administration" xml:lang="en"><term>Patient Care Planning</term><term>Patient Care Team</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="surgery" xml:lang="en"><term>Pelvic Organ Prolapse</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="therapy" xml:lang="en"><term>Urinary Incontinence</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="thérapie" xml:lang="fr"><term>Incontinence urinaire</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult</term><term>Aged</term><term>Aged, 80 and over</term><term>Female</term><term>Group Processes</term><term>Gynecology</term><term>Humans</term><term>Interdisciplinary Communication</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Retrospective Studies</term><term>Urology</term><term>Young Adult</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="fr"><term>Adulte</term><term>Adulte d'âge moyen</term><term>Communication interdisciplinaire</term><term>Femelle</term><term>Gynécologie</term><term>Humains</term><term>Jeune adulte</term><term>Processus de groupe</term><term>Sujet âgé</term><term>Sujet âgé de 80 ans ou plus</term><term>Urologie</term><term>Études rétrospectives</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><p><b>INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS</b></p><p>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.</p></div><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><p><b>METHODS</b></p><p>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.</p></div><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><p><b>RESULTS</b></p><p>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.</p></div><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b></p><p>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.</p></div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">25749717</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2016</Year><Month>04</Month><Day>15</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2018</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>13</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print-Electronic"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1433-3023</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>26</Volume><Issue>8</Issue><PubDate><Year>2015</Year><Month>Aug</Month></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>International urogynecology journal</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Int Urogynecol J</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Multidisciplinary team meetings in urogynaecology.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>1221-7</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1007/s00192-015-2662-4</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText Label="INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS" NlmCategory="OBJECTIVE">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.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="METHODS" NlmCategory="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.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="RESULTS" NlmCategory="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.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="CONCLUSIONS" NlmCategory="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.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Gopinath</LastName><ForeName>Deepa</ForeName><Initials>D</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Stepping Hill Hospital, Poplar Grove, Stockport, SK2 7JE, UK, deeps781@hotmail.com.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Jha</LastName><ForeName>Swati</ForeName><Initials>S</Initials></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2015</Year><Month>03</Month><Day>07</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>England</Country><MedlineTA>Int Urogynecol J</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>101567041</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0937-3462</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000328" MajorTopicYN="N">Adult</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000368" MajorTopicYN="N">Aged</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000369" MajorTopicYN="N">Aged, 80 and over</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005260" MajorTopicYN="N">Female</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006126" MajorTopicYN="N">Group Processes</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006176" MajorTopicYN="Y">Gynecology</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D033183" MajorTopicYN="Y">Interdisciplinary Communication</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008875" MajorTopicYN="N">Middle Aged</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D010347" MajorTopicYN="N">Patient Care Planning</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000458" MajorTopicYN="N">organization & administration</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D010348" MajorTopicYN="N">Patient Care Team</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000458" MajorTopicYN="N">organization & administration</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D056887" MajorTopicYN="N">Pelvic Organ Prolapse</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000601" MajorTopicYN="Y">surgery</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D012189" MajorTopicYN="N">Retrospective Studies</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D014549" MajorTopicYN="N">Urinary Incontinence</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000628" MajorTopicYN="Y">therapy</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D014572" MajorTopicYN="Y">Urology</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D055815" MajorTopicYN="N">Young Adult</DescriptorName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2014</Year><Month>09</Month><Day>17</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2015</Year><Month>02</Month><Day>12</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2015</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>10</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2015</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>10</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2016</Year><Month>4</Month><Day>16</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25749717</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1007/s00192-015-2662-4</ArticleId></ArticleIdList><ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>BMJ. 2012 May 28;344:e3700</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">22641802</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Int J Surg. 2013;11(5):389-94</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">23500030</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>BJOG. 2006 Feb;113(2):231-8</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">16412003</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Lancet Oncol. 2009 Feb;10(2):98-9</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">19185826</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c951</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">20332315</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Clin Radiol. 2013 Aug;68(8):760-1</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">23601985</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Br J Cancer. 2006 Oct 23;95(8):979-85</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17047646</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Apr;200(4):424.e1-8</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">19200939</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Dec;23(12):1781-4</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">22584923</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Cancer. 2001 Apr 1;91(7):1231-7</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">11283921</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Aug;106(2):315-20</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">16055581</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Lancet Oncol. 2006 Nov;7(11):935-43</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17081919</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Lancet Oncol. 2006 Nov;7(11):951-4</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17081921</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Eur J Cancer. 2006 Oct;42(15):2459-62</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">16934974</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Int Urogynecol J. 2014 Jul;25(7):927-33</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">24562788</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference></ReferenceList></PubmedData></pubmed><affiliations><list><country><li>Oman</li></country></list><tree><noCountry><name sortKey="Jha, Swati" sort="Jha, Swati" uniqKey="Jha S" first="Swati" last="Jha">Swati Jha</name></noCountry><country name="Oman"><noRegion><name sortKey="Gopinath, Deepa" sort="Gopinath, Deepa" uniqKey="Gopinath D" first="Deepa" last="Gopinath">Deepa Gopinath</name></noRegion></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Bois/explor/PoplarV1/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001C32 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 001C32 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Bois
|area= PoplarV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Exploration
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:25749717
|texte= Multidisciplinary team meetings in urogynaecology.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:25749717" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a PoplarV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.37. |  |