Imperial College London

Dr Tayana Soukup

Faculty of MedicineInstitute of Global Health Innovation

Honorary Senior Research Fellow
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

t.soukup

 
 
//

Location

 

508Medical SchoolSt Mary's Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Publication Type
Year
to

47 results found

Soukup T, Lamb BW, Morbi A, Shah NJ, Bali A, Asher V, Gandamihardja T, Giordano P, Darzi A, Sevdalis N, Green JSAet al., 2022, Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: impact of logistical challenges on communication and decision-making, BJS OPEN, Vol: 6, ISSN: 2474-9842

Journal article

Kariyawasam D, Soukup T, Parsons J, Sevdalis N, Lopez MB, Forde R, Ismail K, Jones M, Ford-Adams M, Yemane N, Pender S, Thomas S, Murrells T, Silverstien A, Forbes Aet al., 2022, Protocol for a feasibility study and process evaluation of a psychosocially modelled diabetes education programme for young people with type 1 diabetes: the Youth Empowerment Skills (YES) programme, BMJ OPEN, Vol: 12, ISSN: 2044-6055

Journal article

Estevao C, Lopez MB, Davis RE, Jarret L, Soukup T, Bakolis I, Healey A, Harrington J, Woods A, Crane N, Jones F, Pariante C, Fancourt D, Sevdalis Net al., 2022, Evaluation of a community-based performance arts programme for people who have experienced stroke in the UK: protocol for the SHAPER-Stroke Odysseys study, BMJ OPEN, Vol: 12, ISSN: 2044-6055

Journal article

Soukup T, Davis RE, Lopez MB, Healey A, Estevao C, Fancourt D, Dazzan P, Pariante C, Dye H, Osborn T, Bind R, Sawyer K, Rebecchini L, Hazelgrove K, Burton A, Manoharan M, Perkins R, Podlewska A, Chaudhuri R, Derbyshire-Fox F, Hartley A, Woods A, Crane N, Bakolis I, Sevdalis Net al., 2022, Study protocol: randomised controlled hybrid type 2 trial evaluating the scale-up of two arts interventions for postnatal depression and Parkinson's disease, BMJ OPEN, Vol: 12, ISSN: 2044-6055

Journal article

D'Lima D, Soukup T, Hull L, 2022, Evaluating the Application of the RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: An Updated Systematic Review and Exploration of Pragmatic Application, Publisher: FRONTIERS MEDIA SA, ISSN: 1748-5908

Conference paper

Estevao C, Bind R, Fancourt D, Sawyer K, Dazzan P, Sevdalis N, Woods A, Crane N, Rebecchini L, Hazelgrove K, Manoharan M, Burton A, Dye H, Osborn T, Davis RE, Soukup T, de la Torre JA, Bakolis I, Healey A, Perkins R, Pariante Cet al., 2021, SHAPER-PND trial: clinical effectiveness protocol of a community singing intervention for postnatal depression, BMJ OPEN, Vol: 11, ISSN: 2044-6055

Journal article

Soukup T, Sevdalis N, Green JSA, Lamb BW, Chapman C, Skolarus TAet al., 2021, Making Tumor Boards More Patient-Centered: Let's Start With the Name, JCO ONCOLOGY PRACTICE, Vol: 17, Pages: 591-+, ISSN: 2688-1527

Journal article

Winters DA, Soukup T, Sevdalis N, Green JSA, Lamb BWet al., 2021, The cancer multidisciplinary team meeting: in need of change? History, challenges and future perspectives, BJU INTERNATIONAL, Vol: 128, Pages: 271-279, ISSN: 1464-4096

Journal article

Lamb BW, Miah S, Skolarus TA, Stewart GD, Green JSA, Sevdalis N, Soukup Tet al., 2021, Development and Validation of a Short Version of the Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: MODe-Lite, ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, Vol: 28, Pages: 7577-7588, ISSN: 1068-9265

Journal article

Lamb BW, Miah S, Soukup T, 2021, ASO Author Reflections: The Pursuit of Digitalised Quality Improvement Assessment Tools for Cancer Multidisciplinary Teams, ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, Vol: 28, Pages: 7589-7590, ISSN: 1068-9265

Journal article

Soukup T, Murtagh GM, Lamb BW, Bali A, Gandamihardja T, Darzi A, Green JSA, Sevdalis Net al., 2021, Gaps and overlaps in cancer multidisciplinary team communication: analysis of speech, Small Group Research, Vol: 52, Pages: 189-219, ISSN: 1046-4964

Guided by the principles of conversation analysis, we examined the communication practices used to negotiate levels of participation in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings and their implications for patient safety. Three cancer teams participated. Thirty-six weekly meetings were video recorded, encompassing 822 case reviews. A cross-section was transcribed using Jefferson notation. We found a low frequency of gaps between speakers (3%), high frequency of overlaps (24%), and no-gaps-no-overlaps (73%), suggesting fast turn transitions. Securing a turn to speak is challenging due to a systematic reduction in turn-taking opportunities. We contribute to group research with the development of a microlevel methodology for studying multidisciplinary teams.

Journal article

Estevao C, Fancourt D, Dazzan P, Chaudhuri KR, Sevdalis N, Woods A, Crane N, Bind R, Sawyer K, Rebecchini L, Hazelgrove K, Manoharan M, Burton A, Dye H, Osborn T, Jarrett L, Ward N, Jones F, Podlewska A, Premoli I, Derbyshire-Fox F, Hartley A, Soukup T, Davis R, Bakolis I, Healey A, Pariante CMet al., 2021, Scaling-up Health-Arts Programmes: the largest study in the world bringing arts-based mental health interventions into a national health service, BJPSYCH BULLETIN, Vol: 45, Pages: 32-39, ISSN: 2056-4694

Journal article

Soukup T, Murtagh G, Lamb BW, Green JSA, Sevdalis Net al., 2021, Degrees of multidisciplinarity underpinning care planning for patients with cancer in weekly multidisciplinary team meetings: conversation analysis, Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, Vol: 14, Pages: 411-424, ISSN: 1178-2390

Purpose: Despite an increase in research on multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, the implementation of MDT-driven decision-making, ie, its fidelity, remains unstudied. We report fidelity using an observational protocol measuring degree to which MDTs in their weekly meetings in the UK adhere to 1) the stages of group decision-making as per the ‘Orientation-Discussion-Decision-Implementation’ framework, and 2) cancer guidelines on the composition and characteristics of their weekly meetings produced by the UK’s Department of Health, UK’s National Cancer Action Team, Cancer Research UK, World Health Organization, and The Expert Advisory Group on Cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales.Patients and Methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional observational study of MDT meetings in the UK. Breast, colorectal, and gynecological cancer MDTs across three hospitals in the UK were video recorded over 12 weekly meetings, respectively, encompassing 822 case-reviews. A cross-section of 24 case-reviews was analysed with the main outcomes being adherence to the ‘Orientation-Discussion-Decision-Implementation’ framework, and the cancer guidelines.Results: Eight percent of case-reviews in the MDT meetings involved all five core disciplines including surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, histopathologists, and specialist cancer nurses, and 38% included four. The majority of case-reviews (54%) were between two (25%) or three (29%) disciplines only. Surgeons (83%) and oncologists (8%) most consistently engaged in all stages of decision-making. While all patients put forward for MDT meeting were actually reviewed, 4% of them either bypassed the orientation (case presentation), and 8% did not articulate the final decision to the entire team.Conclusion: We found that, despite being a set policy, cancer case-reviews in MDT meetings are not entirely MDT-driven, with more than half of the case-reviews not adhering to the cancer guideli

Journal article

Soukup T, Lamb BW, Shah NJ, Morbi A, Bali A, Asher V, Gandamihardja T, Giordano P, Darzi A, Green JSA, Sevdalis Net al., 2020, Relationships Between Communication, Time Pressure, Workload, Task Complexity, Logistical Issues and Group Composition in Transdisciplinary Teams: A Prospective Observational Study Across 822 Cancer Cases, FRONTIERS IN COMMUNICATION, Vol: 5

Journal article

Soukup T, Sevdalis N, Green JSA, Lamb BWet al., 2020, Quality improvement for cancer multidisciplinary teams: lessons learned from the Anglian Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group, BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, Vol: 124, Pages: 313-314, ISSN: 0007-0920

Journal article

Soukup T, Lamb BW, Morbi A, Shah NJ, Bali A, Asher V, Gandamihardja T, Giordano P, Darzi A, Green JSA, Sevdalis Net al., 2020, A multicentre cross-sectional observational study of cancer multidisciplinary teams: Analysis of team decision making, Cancer Medicine, Vol: 9, Pages: 7083-7099, ISSN: 2045-7634

BackgroundMultidisciplinary teams (MDT) formulate expert informed treatment recommendations for people with cancer. We set out to examine how the factors proposed by the functional perspective of group decision making (DM), that is, interaction process, internal factors (factors emanating from within the group such as group size), external circumstances (factors coming from the outside of the team), and case‐complexity affect the quality of MDT decision making.MethodsThis was a cross‐sectional observational study. Three cancer MDTs were recruited with 44 members overall and 30 of their weekly meetings filmed. Validated observational instruments were used to measure quality of DM, interactions, and complexity of 822 case discussions.ResultsThe full regression model with the variables proposed by the functional perspective was significant, R2 = 0.52, F(20, 801) = 43.47, P < .001, adjusted R2 = 0.51. Positive predictors of DM quality were asking questions (P = .001), providing answers (P = .001), team size (P = .007), gender balance (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), while negative socioemotional reactions (P = .007), gender imbalance (P = .003), logistical issues (P = .001), time‐workload pressures (P = .002), and time spent in the meeting (P = .001) were negative predictors. Second half of the meetings also saw significant decrease in the DM quality (P = .001), interactions (P = .001), group size (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), and an increase in negative socioemotional reactions (P = .001) and time‐workload pressures (P = .001).DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to attempt to assess the factors proposed by the functional perspective in cancer MDTs. One novel finding is the effect of sociocognitive factors on team DM quality, while another is the cognitive‐catch 22 effect: while the case discussions are significantly simpler in the second half of the meeting, there is significantly less time left to discuss

Journal article

Soukup T, Morbi A, Lamb BW, Gandamihardja TAK, Hogben K, Noyes K, Skolarus TA, Darzi A, Sevdalis N, Green JSAet al., 2020, A measure of case complexity for streamlining workflow in multidisciplinary tumor boards: Mixed methods development and early validation of the MeDiC tool, Cancer Medicine, Vol: 9, Pages: 5143-5154, ISSN: 2045-7634

Background and ObjectiveThere is increasing emphasis in cancer care globally for care to be reviewed and managed by multidisciplinary teams (ie, in tumor boards). Evidence and recommendations suggest that the complexity of each patient case needs to be considered as care is planned; however, no tool currently exists for cancer teams to do so. We report the development and early validation of such a tool.MethodsWe used a mixed‐methods approach involving psychometric evaluation and expert review to develop the Measure of case‐Discussion Complexity (MeDiC) between May 2014 and November 2016. The study ran in six phases and included ethnographic interviews, observations, surveys, feasibility and reliability testing, expert consensus, and multiple expert‐team reviews.ResultsPhase‐1 : case complexity factors identified through literature review and expert interviews; Phase‐2 : 51 factors subjected to iterative review and content validation by nine cancer teams across four England Trusts with nine further items identified; Phase 3 : 60 items subjected to expert review distilled to the most relevant; Phase 4 : item weighing and further content validation through a national UK survey; Phases 5 and 6 : excellent interassessor reliability between clinical and nonclinical observers, and adequate validity on 903 video case discussions achieved. A final set of 27 factors, measuring clinical and logistical complexities were integrated into MeDiC.ConclusionsMeDiC is an evidence‐based and expert‐driven tool that gauges the complexity of cancer cases. MeDiC may be used as a clinical quality assurance and screening tool for tumor board consideration through case selection and prioritization.

Journal article

Pallari E, Soukup T, Kyriacou A, Lewison Get al., 2020, Assessing the European impact of alcohol misuse and illicit drug dependence research: clinical practice guidelines and evidence-base policy, EVIDENCE-BASED MENTAL HEALTH, Vol: 23, Pages: 67-76, ISSN: 1362-0347

Journal article

Soukup T, Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, Green JSAet al., 2020, Streamlining cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: challenges and solutions, BRITISH JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE, Vol: 81, ISSN: 1750-8460

Journal article

Soukup T, Hull L, Smith EL, Healey A, Bakolis I, Amiel SA, Sevdalis N, Kendall M, Warren L, Ruszala V, Stephenson M, Durrant Aet al., 2019, Effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 trial evaluating two psychoeducational programmes for severe hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: implementation study protocol, BMJ OPEN, Vol: 9, ISSN: 2044-6055

Journal article

Soukup T, Lamb BW, Weigl M, Green JSA, Sevdalis Net al., 2019, An Integrated Literature Review of Time-on-Task Effects With a Pragmatic Framework for Understanding and Improving Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Oncology Team Meetings, FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, Vol: 10, ISSN: 1664-1078

Journal article

Soukup T, Gandamihardja TAK, McInerney S, Green JSA, Sevdalis Net al., 2019, Do multidisciplinary cancer care teams suffer decision-making fatigue: an observational, longitudinal team improvement study, BMJ OPEN, Vol: 9, ISSN: 2044-6055

Journal article

Soukup T, Lamb BW, Green J, Sevdalis Net al., 2019, Cognitive catch-22: Observational assessment of decision-making, interactions and team dynamics across two equal temporal halves of multidisciplinary oncology team meetings

<p>BackgroundMultidisciplinary team meetings are designed to bring diverse range of healthcare professionals together to discuss patients with cancer and formulate expert informed treatment recommendations; their decision-making (DM) was found variable, however. ObjectiveWe set out to examine how the factors proposed by functional perspective of group DM i.e. the quality of DM, interactions, internal factors (factors emanating from within the group such as group size) and external circumstances (factors coming from the outside of the team, such as time-workload pressure) fare between two equal temporal halves of the multidisciplinary oncology meetings. Design This was a prospective cross-sectional observational study. Setting and participantsThree cancer multidisciplinary teams were recruited with 44 members overall. Thirty weekly meetings were filmed over 3 months respectively. MeasuresThree validated observational instruments were used to measure quality of DM, interactions and discussion complexity for 822 individual patient discussions.ResultsThere was a significant difference between 1st and 2nd half of meetings, F(11,809)=21.56, p&amp;lt;.001; Hotelling’s Trace=0.29. partial η2=.23, with a reduced quality of DM (p=.001) and interactions (p=.001), group size (p=.003), and clinical complexity (p=.001), and increased negative reactions (p=.001) and time-workload pressure (p=.001). ConclusionWhile patient-discussions are significantly simpler in the 2nd half of the meeting, there is significantly less time left to discuss the remaining patients as the teams are rapidly attempting to close the time-workload gap and reach a treatment recommendation for all patients put forward for the meeting. Arguably this further adds to the cognitive taxation in the teams with implications for quality and safety.</p>

Journal article

Soukup T, Murtagh G, Lamb BW, Green J, Sevdalis Net al., 2019, How multidisciplinary are multidisciplinary case reviews in cancer care? Feasibility analysis of a theory-driven team decision-making fidelity framework

<p>Background Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are a standard cancer care policy in many countries worldwide. Despite an increase in research in a recent decade on MDTs and their care planning meetings, the implementation of MDT-driven decision-making (fidelity) remains unstudied. We report a feasibility evaluation of a novel method for assessing cancer MDT decision-making fidelity. We used an observational protocol to assess (1) the degree to which MDTs adhere to the stages of group decision-making as per the ‘Orientation-Discussion-Decision-Implementation’ framework, and (2) the degree of multidisciplinarity underpinning individual case reviews in the meetings. MethodsThis is a prospective observational study. Breast, colorectal and gynaecological cancer MDTs in the Greater London and Derbyshire (United Kingdom) areas were video recorded over 12-weekly meetings encompassing 822 case reviews. Data were coded and analysed using frequency counts.Results Eight interaction formats during case reviews were identified. case reviews were not always multi-disciplinary: only 8% of overall reviews involved all five clinical disciplines present, and 38% included four of five. The majority of case reviews (i.e. 54%) took place between two (25%) or three (29%) disciplines only. Surgeons (83%) and oncologists (8%) most consistently engaged in all stages of decision-making. While all patients put forward for MDT review were actually reviewed, a small percentage of them (4%) either bypassed the orientation (case presentation) and went straight into discussing the patient, or they did not articulate the final decision to the entire team (8%). Conclusions Assessing fidelity of MDT decision-making at the point of their weekly meetings is feasible. We found that despite being a set policy, case reviews are not entirely MDT-driven. We discuss implications in relation to the current eco-political climate, and the quality and safety of care. Our findings are in line with

Journal article

Soukup T, Murtagh G, Lamb BW, Bali A, Gandamihardja T, Darzi A, Green J, Sevdalis Net al., 2019, Gaps and overlaps in healthcare team communication: analysis of speech

<p>Studying groups in their natural contexts can help build understanding of complex organisational behaviours. Guided by the principles of conversation analysis, we discuss some of the dynamics of multidisciplinary teams in cancer care by examining the communication practices used to negotiate levels of participation in their routine work meetings, while considering patient safety implications.Breast, colorectal and gynaecological cancer teams were videoed over 12-weekly meetings encompassing 822 patient-reviews with a cross-section transcribed using Jefferson notation. A low frequency of gaps between speakers (3%) and high frequency of overlaps (24%) and no-gaps-no-overlaps (73%) was found, pointing to fast turn-transitions, secured predominantly with raised pitch and vocalizations. Securing one’s turn to speak in a multi-speaker fast-paced work group setting, such as cancer meetings, can be challenging due to systemic reduction in turn-taking opportunities, hence unequal participation. This may hinder effective communication and open up opportunity for error; an important patient safety implication.</p>

Journal article

Gandamihardja TAK, Soukup T, McInerney S, Green JSA, Sevdalis Net al., 2019, Analysing Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Patient Management: A Prospective Observational Evaluation of Team Clinical Decision-Making, WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, Vol: 43, Pages: 559-566, ISSN: 0364-2313

Journal article

Jalil R, Soukup T, Akhter W, Sevdalis N, Green JSAet al., 2018, Quality of leadership in multidisciplinary cancer tumor boards: development and evaluation of a leadership assessment instrument (ATLAS), WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Vol: 36, Pages: 1031-1038, ISSN: 0724-4983

Journal article

Soukup T, Lamb BW, Arora S, Darzi A, Sevdalis N, Green JSAet al., 2018, Successful strategies in implementing a multidisciplinary team working in the care of patients with cancer: an overview and synthesis of the available literature, Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, Vol: 11, Pages: 49-61, ISSN: 1178-2390

In many health care systems globally, cancer care is driven by multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs). A large number of studies in the past few years and across different literature have been performed to better understand how these teams work and how they manage patient care. The aim of our literature review is to synthesize current scientific and clinical understanding on cancer MDTs and their organization; this, in turn, should provide an up-to-date summary of the current knowledge that those planning or leading cancer services can use as a guide for service implementation or improvement. We describe the characteristics of an effective MDT and factors that influence how these teams work. A range of factors pertaining to teamwork, availability of patient information, leadership, team and meeting management, and workload can affect how well MDTs are implemented within patient care. We also review how to assess and improve these teams. We present a range of instruments designed to be used with cancer MDTs – including observational tools, self-assessments, and checklists. We conclude with a practical outline of what appears to be the best practices to implement (Dos) and practices to avoid (Don’ts) when setting up MDT-driven cancer care.

Journal article

Archer SA, Hull L, Soukup T, Mayer E, Athanasiou T, Sevdalis N, Darzi Aet al., 2017, Development of a Theoretical Framework of Factors Affecting Patient Safety Incident Reporting: A Theoretical Review of the Literature, BMJ Open, Vol: 7, ISSN: 2044-6055

Objectives The development and implementation of incident reporting systems within healthcare continues to be a fundamental strategy to reduce preventable patient harm and improve the quality and safety of healthcare. We sought to identify factors contributing to patient safety incident reporting.Design To facilitate improvements in incident reporting, a theoretical framework, encompassing factors that act as barriers and enablers ofreporting, was developed. Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and PsycINFO were searched to identify relevant articles published between January 1980 and May 2014. A comprehensive search strategy including MeSH terms and keywords was developed to identify relevant articles. Data were extracted by three independent researchers; to ensure the accuracy of data extraction, all studies eligible for inclusion were rescreened by two reviewers.Results The literature search identified 3049 potentially eligible articles; of these, 110 articles, including >29 726 participants, met the inclusion criteria. In total, 748 barriers were identified (frequency count) across the 110 articles. In comparison, 372 facilitators to incident reporting and 118 negative cases were identified. The top two barriers cited were fear of adverse consequences (161, representing 21.52% of barriers) and process and systems of reporting (110, representing 14.71% of barriers). In comparison, the top two facilitators were organisational (97, representing 26.08% of facilitators) and process and systems of reporting (75, representing 20.16% of facilitators).Conclusion A wide range of factors contributing to engagement in incident reporting exist. Efforts that address the current tendency to under-report must consider the full range of factors in order to develop interventions as well as a strategic policy approach for improvement.

Journal article

Soukup T, Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, Green JSAet al., 2017, Undertaking field research, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL UROLOGY, Vol: 10, Pages: 58-61, ISSN: 2051-4158

Journal article

This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.

Request URL: http://wlsprd.imperial.ac.uk:80/respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-html.jsp Request URI: /respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-html.jsp Query String: respub-action=search.html&id=00806213&limit=30&person=true