Skip to main content

Multidisciplinary Team Meetings to Manage Patients with Multimorbidity in Primary Care

Our new paper in the International Journal of Integrated Care reviews the role of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings in the management of multimorbidity in primary care. MDTs bring together professionals to work together to improve health outcomes for patients. MDT meetings are often recommended as a critical aspect of integrated care in guidance and opinion pieces, but it is not clear how and to what extent their use improves outcomes for patients with multimorbidity. Our review aimed to fill this knowledge gap.

We found limited evidence that supports the implementation of MDT meetings in primary care settings for individuals with multimorbidity. There were also substantial problems with the methodological rigour of previous studies on MDT meetings in primary care. Although MDT meeting are a key strategy for delivering comprehensive integrated care, there is a lack of evidence concerning the efficacy of MDT meetings in primary care. The complexity of interventions meant that causality cannot be attributed to the MDT meeting alone. 

There is an urgent need generate more evidence about MDT meetings in primary care. Future research should focus on a broader set of participant characteristics, contextual adaptation, and innovation. Decision makers and clinicians should also take advantage of the recent technological progress in healthcare.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...
5 comments
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more