| Sequential referral model | | Reflects only the physician’s point of view Difficulties identifying specialists/providers to refer the patients Often referring physician did not receive the consultation report back from the specialist following the referral The process is not very efficient due to multiple unnecessary referrals which not add value Greater probability of non-adherence to guidelines Waste of time Difficult coordination with other specialists Misdiagnosis or ill-treatment Poor patient satisfaction
|
| Multidisciplinary meeting model | Current model of interdisciplinary care MDT decisions replace the physician’s individual perspective Emphasizes patient-centered care Shorter time-frames from diagnosis to treatment Greater probability of adherence to evidence-based guidelines Careful consideration for inclusion in clinical trials Contributes to the staff’s wellbeing Better communication within the team Improves job satisfaction Helps to identify and manage different MDT risk factors May increase survival rates Improves patient satisfaction and quality of life
| |
| Multidisciplinary clinics model | Emerging model Promotes coordinated and integrated patient care Rapid access to lung cancer specialists Continuity of care Possibility to evaluate the patient in person Might integrate the services of other professionals (nurses, social workers, pharmacists, etc.) Fewer unnecessary delays from diagnosis to initiation of treatment Better communication among team members Increased diagnostic accuracy Adherence to national/international guidelines Improves clinical and financial outcomes, reducing healthcare costs
| Requires a dedicated physical space Some services may be performed by tertiary centres, forcing patients to travel long distances Organizational effort to schedule patient appointments
|