It was February 2007 that the pediatric surgery department was established in our hospital. Since then, the number of surgical cases of inguinal hernia has been increasing year after year. During 2013, a total of 48 patients underwent hernia surgery. Operations were performed mostly on the day the patients were hospitalized. Before the surgery, the patients and their relatives were told about the nature of the disease and treatment by word of mouth. Actually, however, we were to busy to take much time to talk with them. After surgery, members of patients’ families, being all anxiety, frequently asked us such questions as: - how soon will the patient be allowed to have a cup of tea or juice?; when can the patient do without the IV drip?; and how should the family take care of the patient at home? We presumed that the anxiety might stem from the inadequate explanation given orally by inexperienced nurses. To improve the situation, we, staffers in charge of pediatric inpatient care, and physicians in the outpatient clinic of the pediatric surgery department teamed up to prepare a pamphlet including a list of standardized answers to supposedly most frequently asked questions in the hospitalization setting. The draft of the pamphlet was shown to ward nurses to sound out their opinion on the contents. Based on the results of this survey, the pamphlet was completed. This paper deals with the pamphlet and a summary of nurses’s views on it.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to develop a “Multidisciplinary Collaboration Ability Scale (MCAS)” and examine the reliability and validity for medical professionals engaged in cancer care. Method: The first MCAS draft was created, and the content validity and surface validity of the scale were examined for medical professionals. Next, a cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted on medical professionals engaged in cancer care who worked in medical institutions. Exploratory factor analysis and known-groups technique were carried out, coefficient α calculated, and concurrent validity examined. This study was conducted with the approval of the research ethics review. Result: Exploratory factor analysis resulted in 33 items of 4 factors (ability to promote discussion, foundational relationship building, self-control, and problem-solving activities). The MCAS score was significantly higher for those who had participated in a multidisciplinary workshop and those who had more years of experience. Coefficient α for the entire scale and for each factor was .80 and above. Examination of concurrent validity showed a moderate correlation. Conclusion: The reliability and validity of MCAS in its development stage were generally verified.