To the content
3 . 2022



The multidisciplinary approach is considered to be the gold standard in clinical decision-making and can be implemented at the organizational level as a multidisciplinary team, or at the functional level – as a clinical decision-making process. In Russia, there is no practice of assessing the quality and effectiveness of multidisciplinary teams, which requires familiarization with existing approaches to its assessment, and determining the necessary competencies of specialists.

The aim – to describe the existing approaches to assessing the quality and effectiveness of multidisciplinary teams, to provide recommendations on their implementation in local clinical practice and education.

Material and methods included the historical method, analysis of regulatory information, content analysis of literature.

Results. In Russia, the need for a multidisciplinary approach is fixed in the procedures for providing medical care and is implemented at the functional level. There are seven standards for evaluating the quality of MDT, of which TEAM is the most comprehensive. The most significant factors for the success of multidisciplinary teams are the group work of its members and organizational culture, the implementation of patient–centered principles and the clinical decision-making process, which comprehensively takes into account various aspects of medical care – clinical outcome and possible complications, tariffs within the medical insurance system, hospital expenses and available resources, individual preferences of the patient.

Conclusion. Healthcare managers should be aware of the importance of assessing the quality and effectiveness of MDT work and implement appropriate assessment standards in practice. Within the framework of continuous medical education programs, special attention should be paid to the development of «soft» skills among medical specialists – teamwork, patient-centricity, organizational behavior.

Keywords:evidence-based management; value-based healthcare; personnel management system; continuous medical education; multi-disciplinary team; clinical management; clinical governance

Funding. The study had no sponsor support.

Conflict of interest. The author declares no conflict of interest.

For citation: Zuenkova Yu.A. Organizational aspects of multidisciplinary teams: quality standards, efficiency and implementation in practice. Meditsinskoe obrazovanie i professional’noe razvitie [Medical Education and Professional Development]. 2022; 13 (3): 32–41. DOI: (in Russian)


1.Mesana T. Heart Teams for Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2019: 158 p.

2.Robberstad M., Bentsen S.B., Berg T.J., Iversen M.M. Diabetic foot ulcer teams in Norwegian hospitals. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2017; 137 (17). English, Norwegian. DOI: PMID: 28925190.

3.Elishev V.G., Kicha D.I., Ivanova M.A., Zuenkova Yu.A., Izyurov L.N., Cherchik A.Yu. Multimodal system for the organization of medical care for malignant skin nominations. Sovremennye problemy zdravookhraneniya i meditsinskoy statistiki [Modern Problems of Healthcare and Medical Statistics]. 2021; (4): URL: (date of access May 03, 2022) (in Russian)

4.Department of Health. The NHS Cancer Plan. A Plan for Investment A Plan For Reform. URL: (date of access January 19, 2021)

5.Brown G.T.F., Bekker H.L., Young A.L. Quality and efficacy of Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) quality assessment tools and discussion checklists: a systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2022; 22 (1): 286. DOI: PMID: 35300636; PMCID: PMC8928609.

6.National Cancer Action Team. The Characteristics of an Effective Multidisciplinary Team (MDT). URL: (date of access January 19, 2021)

7.Taylor C., Ramirez A. Multidisciplinary team members’ views about MDT working: results from a survey commissioned by the National Cancer Action Team. URL: (date of access January 19, 2021)

8.Lamb B., Wong H., Vincent C., Green J., Sevdalis N. Teamwork and team performance in multidisciplinary cancer teams: development and evaluation of an observational assessment tool. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011; 20 (10): 849–56.

9.Soukup T., Lamb B., Morbi A., Shah N., Bali A., Asher V., et al. A multicentre cross-sectional observational study of cancer multidisciplinary teams: analysis of team decision making. Cancer Med. 2020; 9 (19): 7083–99.

10. Gandamihardja T., Soukup T., McInerney S., Green J., Sevdalis N. Analysing breast cancer multidisciplinary patient management: a prospective observational evaluation of team clinical decision-making. World J Surg. 2019; 43 (2): 559–66.

11. Lamb B., Miah S., Skolarus T., Stewart G., Green J., Sevdalis N., et al. Development and validation of a short version of the metric for the observation of decision-making in multidisciplinary tumor boards: MODe-Lite. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021; 28 (12): 7577–88.

12. Taylor C., Atkins L., Richardson A., Tarrant R., Ramirez A. Measuring the quality of MDT working: an observational approach. BMC Cancer. 2012; 12 (1): 202.

13. Taylor C., Brown K., Lamb B., Harris J., Sevdalis N., Green J. Developing and testing TEAM (Team Evaluation and Assessment Measure), a self-assessment tool to improve cancer multidisciplinary teamwork. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19 (13): 4019–27.

14. Lamb B., Sevdalis N., Vincent C., Green J. Development and evaluation of a checklist to support decision making in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: MDT-QuIC. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19 (6): 1759–65.

15. Harris J., Taylor C., Sevdalis N., Jalil R., Green J. Development and testing of the cancer multidisciplinary team meeting observational tool (MDTMOT). Int J Qual Health Care. 2016; 28 (3): 332–8.

16. Jalil R., Soukup T., Akhter W., Sevdalis N., Green J. Quality of leadership in multidisciplinary cancer tumor boards: development and evaluation of a leadership assessment instrument (ATLAS). World J Urol. 2018; 36 (7): 1031–8.

17. Kim M., Park H., Kho B., Park C., Oh I., Kim Y., et al. Artificial intelligence and lung cancer treatment decision: agreement with recommendation of multidisciplinary tumor board. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2020; 9 (3): 507–14.

18. Hammer R., Fowler D., Sheets L., Siadimas A., Guo C., Prime M. Digital tumor board solutions have significant impact on case preparation. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020; 4 (4): 757–68.

19. Kicha D.I., Zuenkova Yu.A. Organization of radiotherapy services based on the principles of value-oriented healthcare. Moscow: Rossiyskiy universitet druzhby narodov (RUDN), 2021: 36 p. ISBN 978-5-209-10915-0. EDN BBTDCQ. (in Russian)

20. Zuenkova Yu.A. Value-based healthcare: analysis of EIT health guidelines. Meditsinskie tekhnologii. Otsenka i vybor [Medical Technologies. Evaluation and Selection]. 2021; 1 (43): 26–33. DOI: EDN WXHHFU. (in Russian)

All articles in our journal are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 license)

Balkizov Zalim Zamirovich
Secretary General of the Russian Society of Medical Education Specialists, Director of the Institute of Training of Medical Education Specialists of the Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education, 125993, Moscow, Russian Federation, Professor of the Department of Vocational Education and Educational Technologies of the N.I. Pirogov RNIMU of the MOH of Russia, CEO of GEOTAR-Med, Advisor President of the National Medical Chamber, Moscow, Russian Federation

Journals of «GEOTAR-Media»