Publications
52 results found
Soukup T, Winters D, Chua K-C, et al., 2023, Evaluation of changes to work patterns in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A national mixed-method survey study, CANCER MEDICINE, ISSN: 2045-7634
Thusini S, Milenova M, Nahabedian N, et al., 2022, The development of the concept of return-on-investment from large-scale quality improvement programmes in healthcare: an integrative systematic literature review (vol 22, 1492, 2022), BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, Vol: 22
Thusini ST, Milenova M, Nahabedian N, et al., 2022, The development of the concept of return-on-investment from large-scale quality improvement programmes in healthcare: an integrative systematic literature review, BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, Vol: 22
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 1
Thusini S, Milenova M, Nahabedian N, et al., 2022, Identifying and understanding benefits associated with return-on-investment from large-scale healthcare Quality Improvement programmes: an integrative systematic literature review, BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, Vol: 22
Soukup T, Lamb BW, Morbi A, et al., 2022, Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: impact of logistical challenges on communication and decision-making, BJS OPEN, Vol: 6, ISSN: 2474-9842
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 1
Kariyawasam D, Soukup T, Parsons J, et 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
Estevao C, Lopez MB, Davis RE, et 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
Soukup T, Davis RE, Lopez MB, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 1
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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 4
Estevao C, Bind R, Fancourt D, et al., 2021, SHAPER-PND trial: clinical effectiveness protocol of a community singing intervention for postnatal depression, BMJ OPEN, Vol: 11, ISSN: 2044-6055
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 3
Soukup T, Sevdalis N, Green JSA, et al., 2021, Making Tumor Boards More Patient-Centered: Let's Start With the Name, JCO ONCOLOGY PRACTICE, Vol: 17, Pages: 591-+, ISSN: 2688-1527
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 4
Winters DA, Soukup T, Sevdalis N, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 9
Lamb BW, Miah S, Skolarus TA, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 3
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
Soukup T, Murtagh GM, Lamb BW, et 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.
Estevao C, Fancourt D, Dazzan P, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 9
Soukup T, Murtagh G, Lamb BW, et 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
Soukup T, Lamb BW, Shah NJ, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 3
Soukup T, Sevdalis N, Green JSA, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 3
Soukup T, Lamb BW, Morbi A, et 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
Soukup T, Morbi A, Lamb BW, et 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.
Pallari E, Soukup T, Kyriacou A, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 2
Soukup T, Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, et al., 2020, Streamlining cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: challenges and solutions, BRITISH JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE, Vol: 81, ISSN: 1750-8460
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 15
Lamb BW, Miah S, Stewart GD, et al., 2020, Development and validation of a short version of the Metric for the Observation of Decision-making in multidisciplinary tumor boards: MODe-Lite
<p>Background: Evidence-based tools are necessary for scientifically improving the way cancer multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) work. Such tools are available but can be difficult to use. We sought to develop a robust observational assessment tool for use by healthcare professionals to improve how MTBs work in everyday practice.Participants and methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional observational study in the United Kingdom between September 2015 and July 2016. Three tumor boards from three teaching hospitals were recruited with 44 members overall. Six weekly meetings (146 consecutive cases) were video recorded and scored using the validated MODe tool. Data were subjected to reliability and validity analysis in the current study for the purposes of developing a shorter version of MODe.Results: In phase 1, a reduction in the original items of MODe was achieved through two focus group meetings with expert assessors based on previous research. Twelve original items were reduced to six domains and have received full agreement by the assessors. In Phase 2, the six domains were subjected to item reliability, convergent validation, and internal consistency testing against MODe-Lite global score, MODe global score, and the individual items of MODe. Significant positive correlations were evidenced across the six domains (p&lt;0.01), providing indication of good reliability and validity. In phase 3, feasibility and high inter-assessor reliability in the use of the tool by two clinical assessors was achieved. A final set of 6 domains, measuring clinical input, holistic input, clinical collaboration, pathology, radiology and management plan were integrated into MODe-Lite.Conclusions: MODe-Lite is an evidence-based tool that can be used by healthcare professionals in everyday practice. It can give cancer MTBs insight into the way they work to facilitate improvements in practice.</p>
Soukup T, Hull L, Smith EL, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 6
Soukup T, Lamb BW, Weigl M, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 13
Soukup T, Gandamihardja TAK, McInerney S, et al., 2019, Do multidisciplinary cancer care teams suffer decision-making fatigue: an observational, longitudinal team improvement study, BMJ OPEN, Vol: 9, ISSN: 2044-6055
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 18
Gandamihardja TAK, Soukup T, McInerney S, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 12
Soukup T, Gandamihardja T, Sevdalis N, et al., 2019, Do multidisciplinary cancer care teams suffer decision-making fatigue? An observational, longitudinal team improvement study
<p>Objective: The objective of this study was to examine effectiveness of co-designed quality-improving interventions with a multidisciplinary team (MDT) with high workload and prolonged meetings to ascertain: (1) presence and impact of decision-making (DM) fatigue on team performance in the weekly MDT meeting, and (2) impact of a short meeting break as a countermeasure of DM fatigue.Design and interventions: This is a longitudinal multiphase study with a co-designed intervention bundle assessed within team audit and feedback cycles. The interventions comprised short meeting breaks, as well as change of room layout and appointing a meeting chair.Setting and participants: A breast cancer MDT with 15 members was recruited between 2013 and 2015 from a teaching hospital of the London (UK) metropolitan area. Measures: A validated observational tool (Metric for the Observation of Decision-making, MDT-MODe) was used by trained raters to assess quality of DM during 1,335 patient-reviews. The tool scores quality of information and team contributions to reviews by individual disciplines (Likert-based scores), which represent our two primary outcome measures. Results: Data were analysed using multivariate analysis of variance. DM fatigue was present in the MDT meetings: quality of information (M=16.36 to M=15.10) and contribution scores (M=27.67 to M=21.52) declined from 1st to 2nd half of meetings at baseline. Of the improvement bundle, we found breaks reduced the effect of fatigue: following introduction of breaks (but not other interventions) information quality remained stable between 1st and 2nd half of meetings (M=16.00 to M=15.94), and contributions to team DM improved overall (M=17.66 to M=19.85). Conclusion: Quality of cancer team DM is affected by fatigue due to sequential case-review over often prolonged periods of time. This detrimental effect can be reversed by introducing a break in the middle of the meeting. The study offers a methodology based on ‘
Soukup T, Morbi A, Lamb BW, et al., 2019, A measure of case complexity for cancer multidisciplinary teams: Development and early validation of the MeDiC tool
<p>Background and Objective. There is increasing emphasis in cancer care globally for care to be reviewed and managed by multidisciplinary teams (i.e., 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.Methods. We 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 6 phases and included ethnographic interviews, observations, surveys, feasibility and reliability testing, expert consensus, and multiple expert-team reviews.Results. Phase-1: case complexity factors identified through literature review and expert interviews; Phase-2: 51 factors subjected to iterative review and content validation by 9 cancer teams across 4 England Trusts with 9 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 inter-assessor reliability between clinical and non-clinical 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.Conclusions. MeDiC 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.</p>
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.