Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16923
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKinnear, Ned-
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Riley-
dc.contributor.authorHennessey, Derek B-
dc.contributor.authorBolton, Damien M-
dc.contributor.authorSengupta, Shomik-
dc.date2017-09-14-
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-02T23:12:44Z-
dc.date.available2017-11-02T23:12:44Z-
dc.date.issued2017-11-
dc.identifier.citationBJU International 2017; 120(S3): 15-20en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16923-
dc.description.abstractTo assess implementation rates of the consensus plans made at the uro-oncology multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) of an Australian tertiary centre, and analyse obstacles to implementation. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients discussed at the uro-oncology MDM at our institution between 1 January and 30 June 2015. Rates of referral for MDM discussion after a new histological diagnosis of malignancy, categorised by tumour type, were assessed. Patient records were interrogated to confirm MDM plan implementation, with the outcomes examined being completion of MDM plan within 3 months and factors preventing implementation. RESULTS: During the enrolment period, from 291 uro-oncological procedures, 240 yielded malignant histology of which 160 (67%) were discussed at the MDM. Overall, 202 patients, including 32 females, were discussed at the uro-oncology MDM. MDM consensus plans were implemented in 184 (91.1%) patients. Reasons for deviation from the MDM plan included delay in care, patient deterioration or comorbidities, patient preference, consultant decision, loss to follow-up, and change in patient scenario due to additional new information. CONCLUSION: The MDM is increasingly important in the care of uro-oncology patients, with about two-thirds of new diagnoses currently captured. There appear to be few barriers to the implementation of consensus plans, with nearly all patients undergoing the recommended management.en_US
dc.subjectMDMen_US
dc.subjectimplementationen_US
dc.subjectmulti-disciplinaryen_US
dc.subjectmulti-disciplinary meetingen_US
dc.subjectoncologyen_US
dc.subjecturologyen_US
dc.titleImplementation rates of uro-oncology multidisciplinary meeting decisionsen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleBJU Internationalen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Urology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28719043en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/bju.13892en_US
dc.type.contentTexten_US
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5145-6783en_US
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen_US
local.name.researcherBolton, Damien M
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.author.deptUrology-
crisitem.author.deptUrology-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

38
checked on Nov 22, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.