Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The efficiency of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in cancer care hinges on facilitating clinicians' cognitive processes as they navigate complex and uncertain judgements during treatment planning. When systems and workflows are not designed to adequately support human judgement and decision-making, even experts are prone to fallible reasoning due to cognitive biases. Incomplete integration of information or biased interpretations of patient data can lead to clinical errors and delays in the implementation of treatment recommendations. Though their impact is intuitively recognised, there is currently a paucity of empirical work on cognitive biases in MDT decision-making. Our study aims to explicate the impact of such biases on treatment planning and establish a foundation for targeted investigations and interventions to mitigate their negative effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a qualitative, observational study. We employ cognitive ethnography, informed by the Distributed Cognition for Teamwork framework to assess and evaluate MDT decision-making processes. The study involves in-person and virtual field observations of hepatopancreaticobiliary and upper gastrointestinal MDTs and interviews with their members over several months. The data generated will be analysed in a hybrid inductive/deductive fashion to develop a comprehensive map of potential cognitive biases in MDT decision processes identifying antecedents and risk factors of suboptimal treatment planning processes. Further, we will identify components of the MDT environment that can be redesigned to support decision-making via development of an MDT workspace evaluation tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project has received management and ethical approvals from NHS Lothian Research and Development (2023/0245) and the University of Edinburgh Medical School ethical review committee (23-EMREC-049). Findings will be shared with participating MDTs and disseminated via a PhD thesis, international conference presentations and relevant scientific journals.