Table 3 Integration of the MDT flagging process into routine care (ranked by percent of patients discussed among those flagged)
| Â | Flagged | Â | 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%) | Â | 318 | 220 (69%) | Â |
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 |