Table 5.

Coding tree evaluation video-conferenced MDT

Coding tree			Pos?	Code	Code description	Partner	Centre	Total
Videoconferencing	Recommendation	Nuance	+	22	Video-conferenced MDT is mostly ‘intercollegial consultation’	3	3	6
			+	14	Recommendations are nuances, not a totally different medical procedure or diagnostic/treatment plan for a specific patient	7	10	17
		Follow-up traceable?	+	6	Suggestions are taken from others	1	2	3
			+	20	There is no patient-level evaluation on the implementation of medical procedures agreed, question of trust	3	2	5
			–	34	Sometimes decisions are already taken in relation to continuity of treatment	1	1	2
		Aligning	+	1	Fine-tuning or aligning medical procedures	10	10	20
			+	9	Continue routine cases discussion to prevent deviation from medical procedures	2	2	4
		Knowledge	0	32	Besides videoconferencing also bilateral consultation via telephone	4	1	5
			+	37	Keep ‘know how’ with routine cases	1	2	3
	Added value?	Video-conferenced MDT	+	8	Added value for complex cases versus routine cases	21	24	45
			–	15	Little added value	8	1	9
			0	27	Discuss radiotherapeutic scheme	2	2	4
			–	29	Non-complex cases or ‘formalities’ are communicated because it is mandatory, no added value	7	1	8
			+	30	Recommendation given to own discipline	5	1	6
		Team completeness	+	4	Presence of all three disciplines is essential	3	4	7
			+	11	Expertise (good) of physician is important	5	3	8
			0	23	Add presence of medical oncology discipline as expertise	2	2	4
	Collaboration	Communication	0	2	Working together requires communication	8	2	10
			+	10	At both locations working methods are comparable through video-conferenced MDT	5	2	7
			–	19	Initially it was good to consult, added value decreased because teams have grown towards each other	1	1	2
		Trust	+	5	Respectful collaboration	3	7	10
			+	7	Mutual trust	4	5	9
			+	13	Important to know the partner, not only via videoconferencing; good for cohesion	8	7	15
		Expertise	–	18	Centre member does not think videoconferencing necessary, because partner should be trusted as such	2	4	6
			+	26	Expertise and new developments from centre to partner	2	2	4
		DHCI requirement	0	21	Video-conferenced MDT between centre and partner is a national agreement or policy	2	3	5
			–	31	The national policy—to discuss all cases including routine cases—between centre and partner is perceived as outdated	7	2	9
	Planning	Logistics	–	16	Stressful, considering other video conferences	3	6	9
			0	17	Integrate video-conferenced MDT in the hospital’s MDT for centre and partner	5	7	12
		Preparation	–	12	Improve format of patient presentation	1	1	2
			+	24	Good preparation is important	5	4	9
		Commitments	+	25	Starting and stopping the video-conferenced MDT on time is important	4	1	5
			0	33	Possibly cancel video-conferenced MDT when nothing to discuss	1	1	2
		Equipment	+	3	Technique always flawless	1	1	2
			–	35	Sometimes video-conferenced MDT did not take place due to technical malfunction	1	1	2
			–	36	Placement of monitor in the room hinders colleagues and hampers interaction	2	2	4
Scientific research			0	28	Bias through research setting because researcher is present as observer (Hawthorne effect)	1	1	2
Total quotes						151	131	282

This coding tree has major and minor themes that were derived from the primary research question (recommendations given), the secondary research question (added value as described in benefits and drawbacks perceived) and minor themes derived from researcher’s field notes. One code was related to the research situation.

‘Pos?’ refers to the question: has this code a positive connotation or benefit? + = yes, 185 scores; 0 = neither positive nor negative, 42 scores; – = no, 55 scores.

The amount of codes given is given for the partner, the centre and in total.

DHCI, Dutch Health Care Inspectorate; MDT, multidisciplinary team meeting.