ReviewHow can we improve cancer care? A review of interprofessional collaboration models and their use in clinical management
Introduction
Most cancer patients require multimodal assessment, treatment and follow up, often delivered by different professionals, in different settings, and at different time points [1], [2], [3]. Research has established that coordinated, collaborative service delivery improves clinical (ie. mortality, length of stay, readmission) and patient reported (ie. satisfaction, health related quality of life) outcomes for a variety of acute and chronic conditions [1], [4]. This necessitates interdependent decision making among multiple professionals, but may be challenged by structural and strategic differences between organizations, limited administrative support and reluctance to share resources and power so initiatives to foster interprofessional collaboration in everyday practice are needed [5], [6], [7], [8].
Evidence suggests that collaboration improves cancer care delivery and outcomes, but most cancer management guidelines do not specify how this is to be achieved [9]. A non-systematic review of the literature on multidisciplinary care in cancer found that formal policies and structures have been implemented in Australia, some European countries, the United Kingdom and the United States leading to improved interaction among professionals, treatment decisions, evidence based management, and patient outcomes [10]. However, in this and other studies, timely and appropriate collaborative cancer care and team functioning were found to be challenged by many patient, provider, team and system level factors [11]. In Canada, we too identified numerous challenges of collaborative cancer care through population based survey of, and interviews with health professionals across several studies. They identified numerous informational and logistical challenges including access to testing for diagnosis and staging in a timely manner, lack of standard and innovative human and technological resources, identifying and communicating with specialists, coordinating referral to and back from specialists, lack of or limited evidence supporting decisions about appropriate multidisciplinary management of complex cancer patients, confusion among multidisciplinary team members about who was to order or coordinate management, the need for system level support of collaborative decision making and management, and the need for cancer management professional development opportunities [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].
Clearly, efforts are needed to promote and support collaboration for the clinical management of cancer patients. However, reviews of published research found few empirical studies that support any particular model of collaborative cancer care [21], [22]. Furthermore, research and practice in this area is complicated by incomplete development of concepts, leading to inconsistent operationalization of interventions and evaluation measures [23], [24]. For example, relevant published work in this area refers to collaborative care, integrated care, teamwork, interprofessional, multiprofessional and/or multidisciplinary care. Greater understanding of which collaborative models lead to improved patient, provider and organizational or system outcomes is needed [25], [26], [27]. First it is necessary to characterize research on collaborative care delivery for cancer patients. This would identify the conceptual models and associated aspects that have been studied, and methodological approaches used, highlighting issues not previously studied but that warrant further investigation. Therefore the purpose of this study was to define the conceptual models of collaborative care, and then use that framework to assess the way that collaborative care has been applied or evaluated in empirical research on the clinical management of cancer patients.
Section snippets
Methods
A review of the literature was performed using a two-phase meta-narrative approach [28]. This method is suitable for conceptually examining literature that may vary in focus and study design as a needs assessment by which to generate a plan for ongoing research. The first phase included initial communication between the authors to establish key concepts of interest, searching for models related to key concepts, and summary of their components and limitations. The second phase included targeted
Concepts and models
Primary and synthesized research describing models of health professional interaction for patient management according to the concepts of teamwork, interprofessional collaboration, continuity of care, integrated service delivery, interorganizational collaboration and case management was summarized in Table 1.
Empircal research on clinical management of cancer patients
Empirical research evaluating health professional interaction for the clinical management of cancer patients, factors influencing their interaction, or interventions designed to improve
Discussion
While the inherent nature of cancer requires that it be managed in a collaborative manner there are no established models for how this should be operationalized or evaluated. To guide ongoing policy, practice and research a common understanding of collaboration is needed. The purpose of this study was to generate such insight by describing models of collaboration, and using that framework to assess the way that collaborative care has been applied or evaluated in empirical research on the
Conclusions
Analysis of health services research on cancer management according to available models of collaboration revealed numerous challenges in delivering cancer care that involves multiple health professionals. Few interventions have been applied to overcome these challenges, and empirical research in this area appears to be limited in volume and conceptual underpinning. Ongoing development, implementation and evaluation of collaborative cancer care, in the context of both practice and research,
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no financial, personal or other relationships with people or organizations that could inappropriately influence their work.
References (78)
- et al.
Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: a systematic review and development of practice standards
Eur J Cancer
(2007) - et al.
The need for a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care
J Surg Res
(2002) - et al.
Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK?
Lancet Oncol
(2006) - et al.
Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to a systematic review
Soc Sci Med
(2005) - et al.
Is hospital case management a rationalized myth?
Soc Sci Med
(2001) - et al.
Analysis clinical decision making in multidisciplinary cancer teams
Ann Oncol
(2006) - et al.
Towards improving the coordination of supportive cancer care services in the community
Health Policy
(2004) - et al.
Ongoing care of patients after primary treatment for their cancer
CA Cancer J Clin
(2003) - et al.
Physician-nurse practitioner teams in chronic disease management: the impact on costs, clinical effectiveness, and patients’ perception of care
J Interprof Care
(2003) Pessimism and optimism in inter-professional working
J Interprof Care
(2007)
Interprofessionality as the field of interprofessional practice and interprofessional education: an emerging concept
J Interprofl Care
Sustaining interprofessional collaboration
J Interprof Care
A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide no. 9
Med Teach
Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload and methods of operation on effectiveness
Br J Cancer
Interventions to improve follow up of abnormal findings in cancer screening
Cancer
Challenges in multidisciplinary cancer care among general surgeons in Canada
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Self directed learning needs, patterns and outcomes among general surgeons
J Contin Ed Health Prof
Multiple factors influence compliance with colorectal cancer staging recommendations
BMC Health Serv Res
Compliance, attitudes and barriers to post operative colorectal cancer follow up
J Eval Clin Pract
Predictors of multivisceral resection in patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer
Ann Surg Oncol
Percutaneous needle biopsy for breast diagnosis: how do surgeons decide?
Ann Surg Oncol
Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: identifying opportunities to promote implementation
Ann Surg Oncol
Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: exploring the attitudes of cancer care providers and administrators
J Interprof Care
Measuring integration of cancer services to support performance improvement: the CSI survey
Healthc Policy
Continuity of care for advanced cancer patients
J Palliat Care
Models of integrated cancer care: a critique of the literature
Aust Health Rev
Multidisciplinary care in cancer: do the current research outputs help?
Eur J Cancer Care
Interprofessional collaboration: effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Health systems integration: State of the evidence
Int J Integr Care
Improving the clarity of the interprofessional field: implications for research and continuing interprofessional education
J Cont Ed Health Prof
Collaboration improves the quality of care: methodological challenges and evidence from US health care research
J Interprof Care
Teamwork as an essential component of high-reliability organizations
Health Serv Res
What do we know about health care team effectiveness: a review of the literature
Med Care Res Rev
Effective health care teams: a model of six characteristics developed from shared perceptions
J Interprof Care
The determinants of successful collaboration: a review of theoretical and empirical studies
J Interprof Care
The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: core concepts and theoretical frameworks
J Interprof Care
From parallel practice to integrative health care: a conceptual framework
BMC Health Serv Res
Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review
Br Med J
Indices for continuity of care: a systematic review of the literature
Med Care Res Rev
Cited by (79)
A scoping review of ageism towards older adults in cancer care
2023, Journal of Geriatric OncologyContinuity of cancer care and collaboration between family physicians and oncologists: Results of a randomized clinical trial
2021, Annals of Family MedicineCitation Excerpt :The trial was approved by the IUCPQ Research Ethics Committee and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on July 8, 2011 (NCT01389739). The intervention was based on prior study results on the role of FPs in cancer care7,20,21 and developed according to published strategies to improve interprofessional collaboration.22 We conducted a pilot study with 20 FPs from different settings and the IUCPQ oncology team to assess the feasibility/acceptability of the intervention.
Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care: a scoping review
2024, Supportive Care in CancerAn Exploration of the Pillars of Leadership in Cancer Education
2024, Journal of Cancer Education