Improving Craniofacial Team Collaboration: A Multicenter Interview Study of Effective Team Meetings

Objective: In the USA, the American Cleft Palate Association-Craniofacial Association (ACPA-CPF) specifies guidelines to ensure craniofacial teams function in a multidisciplinary fashion to provide care in a sequence that mirrors the patient's needs. Among these guidelines is the expectation that teams hold regular multidisciplinary team meetings to discuss patient care. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that contribute to optimal team functioning during these meetings. The impact of the virtual format on meetings was also evaluated. Design: One-hour semi-structured interviews of craniofacial team members, queried on current and ideal team meetings, were conducted from December 2020 - January 2021. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded to identify common themes until thematic saturation was achieved. Setting/Participants: Sixteen team members from three major American craniofacial centers were interviewed virtually. Results: Three major categories were identified as integral to successful meetings: (1) meeting content, (2) meeting processes, and (3) team dynamics. Within these categories are several factors that participants reported as important to optimize their multidisciplinary meetings: key content for discussions, integration of patient perspective, recognition of collaboration in determining proper sequence of treatments, an attentive discussion leader promoting equitable discussions, managing absences, and team diversity. Participants also identified benefits and pitfalls of hosting meetings in the virtual setting, including lack of engagement and awkward communication. Conclusion: Diverse groups of disciplines are expected to come together during craniofacial multidisciplinary meetings to formulate intricate care plans for complex patients. In this study, craniofacial team members have identified several key factors to optimize these meetings. The research group used these factors to propose a self-evaluation instrument for meeting quality improvement, provided in printable format. Further studies should evaluate how implementation of these factors affects meetings and ultimately guides patient care.