Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In 2019, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended discussion of all primary prolapse cases at a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting prior to surgery. However, following the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face meetings were suspended. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of MDT meetings in an observational retrospective review of primary prolapse cases and determine whether alternatives to face-to-face MDT meetings such as virtual and remote paper result in different outcomes. METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive patients with primary prolapse, who had already been through face-to-face MDT meetings in 2019, were subjected to remote paper (independent review by team members, who then submit a paper outcome to the MDT meeting chair) and a virtual MDT meeting by the same team (blinded). Outcomes included agree, minor amendment (changing the order of priority of the compartment, changing procedure from + to +/-), major amendment (adding/removing a compartment) and insufficient information. MDT outcomes were compared for remote paper, virtual, and face-to-face MDT options. RESULTS: In 88% of cases, face-to-face MDT meetings agreed to proceed unchanged (4% minor amendment, 7% major amendment, 1% insufficient information). This compared with 80% at virtual MDT (5% minor amendment, 11% major amendment, 4% insufficient information) and 74% when conducted by remote paper (5% minor amendment, 15% major amendment, 6% insufficient information). There was no significant difference in outcomes among the MDT meeting formats (Chi-squared 7.73, p=0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary team discussion changes management in a minority of primary prolapse cases. Similar MDT decisions are produced by virtual and remote paper formats, although the latter had the lowest concordance of opinions.