A Dual‐Perspective Comparison of Classical and Clinic‐Based Multidisciplinary Team Models in Cancer Care: A Cross‐Sectional and Qualitative Study

TL;DR

This study compares two cancer care team models in China, finding that the clinic-based model improves patient satisfaction and efficiency, while the traditional model supports physician training.

Contribution

The study provides a dual-perspective analysis of two MDT models, highlighting their distinct benefits in cancer care.

Findings

The MDT clinic model improved diagnostic and treatment plan efficiency according to 25 out of 28 physicians.

Patients in MDT clinics reported higher satisfaction (4.66) than those in classical MDT meetings (4.53).

Non-local patients in MDT clinics showed greater satisfaction compared to local patients.

Abstract

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) represent a key trend in global cancer care. This study aims to discuss the applicability and benefits of two MDT models in a Chinese tertiary cancer hospital, the classical MDT consultation meeting model and the MDT clinic model, regarding process and efficiency, physicians' preferences, and patients' satisfaction.

We conducted a user‐side cross‐sectional survey among patients in MDT clinics (n = 520) and consultation meetings (n = 123) via convenience sampling. The survey captured basic information, treatment results, and satisfaction (5‐point Likert scale). On the provider side, semistructured interviews were conducted among 28 physicians on MDTs, focusing on the team's working mode and communication style.

Since 2005, the hospital has established 15 MDTs. The classical model, operating on a fixed schedule, is valued by physicians for educating young staff. Since 2020, MDT clinics in 8 disciplines have streamlined the appointment process and involved patients directly in discussions. The majority of physicians (25/28) affirmed that this model has improved the efficiency of developing diagnostic and treatment plans. The overall satisfaction of patients with the MDT clinic was (4.66 ± 0.54), which was higher than their satisfaction with the classical MDT model (4.53 ± 0.53). In the MDT clinic model, non‐local patients reported greater satisfaction (4.68 ± 0.58) than did local patients (4.65 ± 0.53), while the opposite was true of the classical MDT model. Patients with more complex tumor types (F = 2.35), longer wait times (F = 9.53), or no clear treatment plan (t = 9.49) reported lower satisfaction with both models (p < 0.05).

For regional hubs featuring the necessary resources, the establishment of a multidisciplinary clinic model for diagnosis and treatment is strongly encouraged. The classical MDT meeting is indispensable for complex case deliberation and physician training, while the multidisciplinary clinic model can be utilized to enhance patient‐centered care and satisfaction.

Figures