A prospective evaluation of treatment recommendations compared to outcomes for a lung cancer multidisciplinary team...

This cross-sectional study compared treatment recommendations made by a respiratory multi-disciplinary team with the treatment received by those patients in practice. The aim was to evaluate the rate at which patients were treated in keeping with MDT recommendations. It was hypothesised that most patients would be treated in accordance with these recommendations. These data were then used to provide a practical basis to consider the potential legal liability of multi-disciplinary teams.

All patients discussed in the Princess Alexandra Hospital Lung MDT over a three-month period were included. The recommendations made by the MDT were compared with the treatment received. Where available, the reason for any change in management plan was recorded.

74/109 evaluable patients were treated in accordance with the MDT recommendation. A further 7 patients had commenced treatment prior to MDT discussion. The most common reasons for change in management were patient choice (n = 6) or deterioration in clinical condition prior to treatment (n = 6).

As hypothesised, there was a high rate of treatment in accordance with recommendations made by the MDT. Changes in management are mostly related to patient preference or change in condition after MDT discussion. In practice, there are only limited opportunities for an MDT to be liable for patient outcomes. It is suggested however that careful documentation and representation of cases where appropriate could further mitigate this risk.