Skip to main content

Table 3 Integration of the MDT flagging process into routine care (ranked by percent of patients discussed among those flagged)

From: A multidisciplinary team-oriented intervention to increase guideline recommended care for high-risk prostate cancer: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised implementation trial

  Flagged   Discussed1 among those flagged
Characteristic N1^ n1 (% of N1) Adjusted # RR (95% CI) N2^^ n2 (% of N2) Adjusted # RR (95% CI)
All patients: 407 318 (78%)   318 220 (69%)  
Hospital
 Site 6 36 34 (94%) 1.13 (1.03, 1.25) 34 34 (100%) 3.30 (2.70, 4.03)
 Site 5 19 6 (32%) 0.46 (0.16, 1.32) 6 6 (100%) 3.14 (2.50, 3.95)
 Site 1 48 32 (67%) 0.94 (0.81, 1.09) 32 30 (94%) 2.94 (2.29, 3.78)
 Site 4 54 40 (74%) 0.96 (0.78, 1.17) 40 36 (90%) 2.92 (2.29, 3.72)
 Site 8 52 48 (92%) 1.13 (1.07, 1.21) 48 40 (83%) 2.74 (2.23, 3.37)
 Site 2 12 8 (67%) 0.79 (0.75, 0.84) 8 6 (75%) 2.47 (2.03, 3.02)
 Site 7 34 25 (74%) 0.94 (0.67, 1.33) 25 18 (72%) 2.37 (1.59, 3.54)
 Site 9 32 29 (91%) 1.42 (1.24, 1.63) 29 20 (69%) 2.09 (1.29, 3.37)
 Site 3 120 96 (80%) ref. 96 30 (31%) ref.
p value    < 0.001    < 0.001
Insurance
 Private 329 280 (85%) ref. 280 190 (68%) ref.
 Public 78 38 (49%) 0.56 (0.42, 0.75) 38 30 (79%) 1.15 (0.89, 1.49)
p value    < 0.001    0.282
  1. ^Intervention group patients
  2. ^^Intervention group patients who were flagged
  3. 1Patient discussed at MDT meeting within 4 months after prostatectomy
  4. #Adjusted for site and insurance with urologist as the GEE clustering variable