Standard and well documented model of care

Quick decision-making

Reflects only the physician’s point of view

Difficulties identifying specialists/providers to refer the patients

Often referring physician did not receive the consultation report back from the specialist following the referral

The process is not very efficient due to multiple unnecessary referrals which not add value

Greater probability of non-adherence to guidelines

Waste of time

Difficult coordination with other specialists

Misdiagnosis or ill-treatment

Poor patient satisfaction

Current model of interdisciplinary care

MDT decisions replace the physician’s individual perspective

Emphasizes patient-centered care

Shorter time-frames from diagnosis to treatment

Greater probability of adherence to evidence-based guidelines

Careful consideration for inclusion in clinical trials

Contributes to the staff’s wellbeing

Better communication within the team

Improves job satisfaction

Helps to identify and manage different MDT risk factors

May increase survival rates

Improves patient satisfaction and quality of life

Time consuming

Possible disagreements and antagonism

Difficulty supervising post-discussion care

Emerging model

Promotes coordinated and integrated patient care

Rapid access to lung cancer specialists

Continuity of care

Possibility to evaluate the patient in person

Might integrate the services of other professionals (nurses, social workers, pharmacists, etc.)

Fewer unnecessary delays from diagnosis to initiation of treatment

Better communication among team members

Increased diagnostic accuracy

Adherence to national/international guidelines

Improves clinical and financial outcomes, reducing healthcare costs

Requires a dedicated physical space

Some services may be performed by tertiary centres, forcing patients to travel long distances

Organizational effort to schedule patient appointments