pdf
Published
2022-01-24
Issue
Section
Pharmacy Practice & Practice-Based Research
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Moano Gnagna-Waka, Georges Adunlin, Katie Boyd, Patricia Jumbo-Lucioni, Bolanle Bolaji , Matthew Asare
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright of content published in INNOVATIONS in pharmacy belongs to the author(s).
Perspectives of Pharmacists on the Structure, Decision-Making, and Communication Practices of Multidisciplinary Cancer Teams in Alabama
Moano Gnagna-Waka
Samford University McWhorter School of Pharmacy
Georges Adunlin
Samford University McWhorter School of Pharmacy
Katie Boyd
Samford University McWhorter School of Pharmacy
Patricia Jumbo-Lucioni
Samford University McWhorter School of Pharmacy, Department of Biological Sciences, College of Arts and Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Bolanle Bolaji
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Matthew Asare
Department of Public Health, Baylor University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v13i1.4298
Keywords: pharmacist; multidisciplinary team; cancer; shared decision-making
Abstract
Introduction: A multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach within cancer care settings is increasingly being adopted to improve patient outcomes due to the rising complexity of diagnosis and treatment. This study aims to explore the perspective of pharmacists on the structure, decision-making process, and communication practices of cancer MDTs.
Methods: A 25‐item online questionnaire was distributed to oncology‐related clinical pharmacists in Alabama. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results: A total of 15 pharmacists completed the survey. More than half of the respondents reported that MDT meetings were held mostly in person on a set schedule. While physicians primarily facilitated the meetings, patients and/or their caregivers were largely not invited to participate in them. The treating physician oversaw delivering and update to the patient and/or their caregivers after the MDT meetings. Most respondents indicated that positron emission and computed tomography were the most common sources of information available at initial case presentations. Overall, respondents strongly agreed that they felt comfortable sharing their opinions with others health professionals during MDT meetings.
Conclusions: This study provides evidence that oncology pharmacists are involved in MDT decision-making processes and communications but suggests the need to promote conditions to further their participation.
