Application of cognitive-behavioural family intervention for schizophrenia in multidisciplinary teams : what can the matter be?

Surveyed 45 therapists who had participated in a family intervention for schizophrenia training program to examine the difficulties they had encountered, their recall of the intervention strategies, and the extent that they thought the approach had become integrated in their everyday work. Between 6 mo and 3 yrs after the family training, Ss reported the number of families they had systematically treated, and the difficulties they had encountered. Allowance of time to undertake the intervention, afterhours scheduling, and illness or holidays presented particular difficulties. Only 4% reported that their knowledge of behavioral techniques was a problem, but in a written test most therapists did not display minimum recall of the material of cognitive therapy, social skills training, or behavioral strategies. The study demonstrated significant problems in disseminating cognitive-behavioral approaches to multidisciplinary settings.

Development of the Rapid Assessment, Prioritisation and Referral Tool (RAPaRT) for multidisciplinary teams in emergency care settings

Objective This investigation utilised the expertise of allied members of multidisciplinary teams working in emergency care settings to develop and validate a Rapid Assessment Prioritisation and Referral Tool (RAPaRT). This instrument is intended for use among patients (with non-life threatening acuity) presenting to emergency care settings to indicate when referral to an allied member of the multidisciplinary team is warranted. Method This three stage instrument development and validation study included: a Delphi panel process to determine key criteria to guide instrument development and identify potential items to be carried forward for testing (stage 1); a prospective cohort of consecutive admissions (n=153) to investigate item sensitivity and specificity and retain only the most suitable items (stage 2); then final consultation with the Delphi panel to ensure the final instrument was clinically amenable (stage 3). Results 23 potential items were identified following stage 1. At the completion of item sensitivity and specificity analysis and in consultation with the Delphi panel, seven items were retained in the instrument. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.803 for these seven items in predicting when a referral was warranted. Final consultation with the Delphi panel members also resulted in the addition of an open ended (eighth) item to allow description of any infrequent, but important, reason for referral. Conclusions The RAPaRT has demonstrated substantial promise as an efficient clinically amenable instrument to assist multidisciplinary teams in emergency care settings. Further research to investigate the wider implementation of the RAPaRT is warranted.

Predicting transactive memory systems in multidisciplinary teams : The interplay between team and professional identities

In explaining how communication quality predicts TMS in multidisciplinary teams, we drew on the social identity approach to investigate the mediating role of team identification and the moderating role of professional identification. Recognizing that professional identification could trigger intergroup biases among professional subgroups, or alternatively, could bring resources to the team, we explored the potential moderating role of professional identification in the relationship between team identification and TMS. Using data collected from 882 healthcare personnel working in 126 multidisciplinary hospital teams, results supported our hypothesis that perceived communication quality predicted TMS through team identification. Furthermore, findings provided support for a resource view of professional subgroup identities with results indicating that high levels of professional identification compensated for low levels of team identification in predicting TMS. We provide recommendations on how social identities may be used to promote TMS in multidisciplinary teams.

Questions about multidisciplinary teams

Multidisciplinary care (MDC) involves health professionals from a range of disciplines working together as a team (a multidisciplinary team – MDT) to deliver comprehensive care that addresses as many of a patient's needs as possible. Writing in 2011, Wilcoxon and others concluded: ‘Multidisciplinary care is accepted as best practice in cancer treatment planning and care.’ Yet their report (of the national audit of multidisciplinary cancer care in Australia) indicated that two-thirds of the surveyed hospitals did not have a MDT. Further, they found that where teams did exist, one-third of patients were not told that their case would be discussed by the team; the MDT-recommended treatment plan was not included in the patient’s record one-quarter of the time; and less than 1 per cent of teams reported routine attendance by the tumour-specific minimum core team. There is sparse case authority as to the potential medico-legal consequences of MDC by MDTs. This article raises five questions about legal aspects of MDC for consideration. The questions are not limited to cancer care, as MDTs are increasingly used in other areas of medicine.

Moral shielding: A grounded theory of integrity maintenance in multidisciplinary teams

Using a classic grounded theory methodology (CGT), this study explores the phenomenon of moral shielding within mental health multidisciplinary teams (MDTS). The study was located within three catchment areas engaged in acute mental health service practice. The main concern identified was the maintenance of a sense of personal integrity during situational binds. Through theoretical sampling thirty two practitioners, including; doctors, nurses, social workers, occupational therapists, counsellors and psychologists, where interviewed face to face. In addition, emergent concepts were identified through observation of MDTs in clinical and research practice. Following a classic grounded theory methodology, data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously. A constant comparative approach was adopted and resulted in the immergence of three sub- core categories; moral abdication, moral hinting and pseudo-compliance. Moral abdication seeks to re-position within an event in order to avoid or deflect the initial obligation to act, it is a strategy used to remove or reduce moral ownership. Moral gauging represents the monitoring of an event with the goal of judging the congruence of personal principles and commitments with that of other practitioners. This strategy is enacted in a bid to seek allies for the support of a given moral position. Pseudo-compliance represents behaviour that hides desired principles and commitments in order to shield them from challenge. This strategy portrays agreement with the dominant position within the MDT, whilst holding a contrary position. It seeks to preserve a reservoir of emotional energy required to maintain a sense of personal integrity. Practitioners who were successful in enacting moral shielding were found to not experience significant emotional distress associated with the phenomenon of moral distress; suggesting that these practitioners had found mechanisms to manage situational binds that threatened their sense of personal integrity.

Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams: a multi-sample study of team innovation in health care

Driven by the assumption that multidisciplinarity contributes positively to team outcomes teams are often deliberately staffed such that they comprise multiple disciplines. However, the diversity literature suggests that multidisciplinarity may not always benefit a team. This study departs from the notion of a linear, positive effect of multidisciplinarity and tests its contingency on the quality of team processes. It was assumed that multidisciplinarity only contributes to team outcomes if the quality of team processes is high. This hypothesis was tested in two independent samples of health care workers (N = 66 and N = 95 teams), using team innovation as the outcome variable. Results support the hypothesis for the quality of innovation, rather than the number of innovations introduced by the teams.

Is there a role for pharmacists in multidisciplinary health-care teams at community outreach events for the homeless?

Homelessness is a significant public health problem. It is well-documented that people experiencing homelessness exhibit more serious illnesses and have poorer health than the general population. The provision of services and interventions by health-care professionals, including pharmacists, may make a simple yet important contribution to improved health outcomes in those experiencing homelessness, but evidence of roles and interventions is limited and variable. In Australia, the Queensland University of Technology Health Clinic connects with the homeless community by taking part in community outreach events. This paper provides details of one such event, as well as the roles, interventions and experiences of pharmacists. Participation and inclusion of pharmacists in a multidisciplinary health-care team approach at homeless outreach events should be supported and encouraged.

Controlled trial of multidisciplinary care teams for acutely ill medical inpatients: enhanced multidisciplinary care

Background: Acute hospital general medicine services care for ageing complex patients, using the skills of a range of health-care providers. Evidence suggests that comprehensive early assessment and discharge planning may improve efficiency and outcomes of care in older medical patients. Aim: To enhance assessment, communication, care and discharge planning by restructuring consistent, patient-centred multidisciplinary teams in a general medicine service. Methods: Prospective controlled trial enrolling 1538 consecutive medical inpatients. Intervention units with additional allied health staff formed consistent multidisciplinary teams aligned with inpatient admitting units rather than wards; implemented improved communication processes for early information collection and sharing between disciplines; and specified shared explicit discharge goals. Control units continued traditional, referral-based multidisciplinary models with existing staffing levels. Results: Access to allied health services was significantly enhanced. There was a trend to reduced index length of stay in the intervention units (7.3 days vs 7.8 days in control units, P = 0.18), with no change in 6-month readmissions. in-hospital mortality was reduced from 6.4 to 3.9% (P = 0.03); less patients experienced functional decline in hospital (P = 0.04) and patients' ratings of health status improved (P = 0.02). Additional staffing costs were balanced by potential bed-day savings. Conclusion: This model of enhanced multidisciplinary inpatient care has provided sustainable efficiency gains for the hospital and improved patient outcomes.

Evaluating the contribution of the clinical librarian to a multidisciplinary team

Urquhart, C., Turner, J., Durbin, J. & Ryan, J. (2006). Evaluating the contribution of the clinical librarian to a multidisciplinary team. Library and Information Research, 30(94), 30-43. Sponsorship: NHS Trusts in North Wales

Multidisciplinary Teamwork in Autism: Can One Size Fit All?

Multidisciplinary practice has become an accepted approach in many education and social and health care fields. In fact, the right to a multidisciplinary assessment is enshrined in the United Nations Convention of the Rights for Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2007). In order to avert a 'one size fits all' response to particularly heterogeneous diagnoses, such as autism spectrum disorders (ASD), the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends multidisciplinary input. Yet, multidisciplinarity lacks empirical evidence of effectiveness, is fraught with conceptual difficulties and methodological incompatibilities, and therefore there is a danger of resorting to an ill-defined eclectic 'hodgepodge' of interventions. Virtually all evidence-based interventions in autism and intellectual disabilities are behaviourally based. Not surprisingly, therefore, professionals trained in behaviour analysis to international standards are increasingly becoming key personnel in multidisciplinary teams. In fact, professionals from a range of disciplines seek training in behaviour analysis. In this article we brought together a multidisciplinary group of professionals from education, health, and social care, most of whom have a dual qualification in an allied health, social care, or educational profession, as well as in behaviour anlaysis. Together we look at the initial training in these professions and explore how behaviour analysis can offer a common and coherent conceptual framework for true multidisciplinarity, based on sound scientific knowledge about behaviour, without resort to reifying theories. We illustrate how this unifying approach can enhance evidence-based multidisciplinary practice so that 'one size' will fit all. Copyright © Australian Psychological Society Ltd 2014.

The role of team leadership in Portuguese child protection teams

The majority of team leadership studies have ignored the specific context in which that leadership takes place and the cyclical correlation of inputs and processes on ongoing performance. It is our contention that leadership is a mediator of team processes and team effectiveness on ongoing functioning of multidisciplinary teams (MDT). The members of 126 multidisciplinary teams responded to a survey on several aspects related to the functioning and leadership of their teams. The results support the hypothesis that leadership does mediate the relationship between reflexivity and effectiveness (i.e. team management performance, boundary spanning and satisfaction) within the team. Theoretically, these findings challenge those of linear models that typically analyse the impact of leadership as something that happens in isolation. Future research should describe and consider not just the team type and tasks but also investigate the roles that context and time play in team leadership.

Multidisciplinary team developed and implemented protocols to assist mechanical ventilation weaning : a systematic review of literature

Aim: The aim of this review was to determine if ventilation-weaning protocols developed and implemented by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation in adult intensive care patients compared to usual care.

Method: A systematic review was conducted to review published research studies from January 1999 to June 2009 to identify and analyse the best available evidence on MDT-based weaning protocols in adult intensive care patients. All relevant studies based on electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were included. Where possible data were pooled and a meta-analysis performed. A narrative synthesis of data was conducted to provide a critical appraisal of nonrandomised controlled trials included in the review.

Results: Three pre- and postinterventional studies were identified for inclusion in this review. Results show equivocal support for weaning protocols developed and implemented by MDTs for reducing duration of mechanical ventilation.

Conclusion: Communication and organizational processes must be addressed for multidisciplinary protocols to be effective. Due to methodological limitations of included studies, large randomised controlled trials are required to provide high-level evidence of the effects of MDT-based protocols on duration of mechanical ventilation.

A multidisciplinary reference framework to support innovative design, implementation and assessment of chronic care models

Hoy en día, por primera vez en la historia, la mayor parte de la población podrá vivir hasta los sesenta años y más (United Nations, 2015). Sin embargo, todavía existe poca evidencia que demuestre que las personas mayores, estén viviendo con mejor salud que sus padres, a la misma edad, ya que la mayoría de los problemas de salud en edades avanzadas están asociados a las enfermedades crónicas (WHO, 2015). Los sistemas sanitarios de los países desarrollados funcionan adecuadamente cuando se trata del cuidado de enfermedades agudas, pero no son lo suficientemente eficaces en la gestión de las enfermedades crónicas. Durante la última década, se han realizado esfuerzos para mejorar esta gestión, por medio de la utilización de estrategias de prevención y de reenfoque de la provisión de los servicios de atención para la salud (Kane et al. 2005). Según una revisión sistemática de modelos de cuidado de salud, comisionada por el sistema nacional de salud Británico, pocos modelos han conceptualizado cuáles son los componentes que hay que utilizar para proporcionar un cuidado crónico efectivo, y estos componentes no han sido suficientemente estructurados y articulados. Por lo tanto, no hay suficiente evidencia sobre el impacto real de cualquier modelo existente en la actualidad (Ham, 2006). Las innovaciones podrían ayudar a conseguir mejores diagnósticos, tratamientos y gestión de pacientes crónicos, así como a dar soporte a los profesionales y a los pacientes en el cuidado. Sin embargo, la forma en las que estas innovaciones se proporcionan no es lo suficientemente eficiente, efectiva y amigable para el usuario. Para mejorar esto, hace falta crear equipos de trabajo y estrategias multidisciplinares. En conclusión, hacen falta actividades que permitan conseguir que las innovaciones sean utilizadas en los sistemas de salud que quieren mejorar la gestión del cuidado crónico, para que sea posible: 1) traducir la “atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia” en “conocimiento factible”; 2) hacer frente a la complejidad de la atención sanitaria a través de una investigación multidisciplinaria; 3) identificar una aproximación sistemática para que se establezcan intervenciones innovadoras en el cuidado de salud. El marco de referencia desarrollado en este trabajo de investigación es un intento de aportar estas mejoras. Las siguientes hipótesis han sido propuestas: Hipótesis 1: es posible definir un proceso de traducción que convierta un modelo de cuidado crónico en una descripción estructurada de objetivos, requisitos e indicadores clave de rendimiento. Hipótesis 2: el proceso de traducción, si se ejecuta a través de elementos basados en la evidencia, multidisciplinares y de orientación económica, puede convertir un modelo de cuidado crónico en un marco descriptivo, que define el ciclo de vida de soluciones innovadoras para el cuidado de enfermedades crónicas. Hipótesis 3: es posible definir un método para evaluar procesos, resultados y capacidad de desarrollar habilidades, y asistir equipos multidisciplinares en la creación de soluciones innovadoras para el cuidado crónico. Hipótesis 4: es posible dar soporte al desarrollo de soluciones innovadoras para el cuidado crónico a través de un marco de referencia y conseguir efectos positivos, medidos en indicadores clave de rendimiento. Para verificar las hipótesis, se ha definido una aproximación metodológica compuesta de cuatro Fases, cada una asociada a una hipótesis. Antes de esto, se ha llevado a cabo una “Fase 0”, donde se han analizado los antecedentes sobre el problema (i.e. adopción sistemática de la innovación en el cuidado crónico) desde una perspectiva multi-dominio y multi-disciplinar. Durante la fase 1, se ha desarrollado un Proceso de Traducción del Conocimiento, elaborado a partir del JBI Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) model of evidence-based healthcare (Pearson, 2005), y sobre el cual se han definido cuatro Bloques de Innovación. Estos bloques consisten en una descripción de elementos innovadores, definidos en la fase 0, que han sido añadidos a los cuatros elementos que componen el modelo JBI. El trabajo llevado a cabo en esta fase ha servido también para definir los materiales que el proceso de traducción tiene que ejecutar. La traducción que se ha llevado a cabo en la fase 2, y que traduce la mejor evidencia disponible de cuidado crónico en acción: resultado de este proceso de traducción es la parte descriptiva del marco de referencia, que consiste en una descripción de un modelo de cuidado crónico (se ha elegido el Chronic Care Model, Wagner, 1996) en términos de objetivos, especificaciones e indicadores clave de rendimiento y organizada en tres ciclos de innovación (diseño, implementación y evaluación). Este resultado ha permitido verificar la segunda hipótesis. Durante la fase 3, para demostrar la tercera hipótesis, se ha desarrollado un método-mixto de evaluación de equipos multidisciplinares que trabajan en innovaciones para el cuidado crónico. Este método se ha creado a partir del método mixto usado para la evaluación de equipo multidisciplinares translacionales (Wooden, 2013). El método creado añade una dimensión procedural al marco. El resultado de esta fase consiste, por lo tanto, en una primera versión del marco de referencia, lista para ser experimentada. En la fase 4, se ha validado el marco a través de un caso de estudio multinivel y con técnicas de observación-participante como método de recolección de datos. Como caso de estudio se han elegido las actividades de investigación que el grupo de investigación LifeStech ha desarrollado desde el 2008 para mejorar la gestión de la diabetes, actividades realizadas en un contexto internacional. Los resultados demuestran que el marco ha permitido mejorar las actividades de trabajo en distintos niveles: 1) la calidad y cantidad de las publicaciones; 2) se han conseguido dos contratos de investigación sobre diabetes: el primero es un proyecto de investigación aplicada, el segundo es un proyecto financiado para acelerar las innovaciones en el mercado; 3) a través de los indicadores claves de rendimiento propuestos en el marco, una prueba de concepto de un prototipo desarrollado en un proyecto de investigación ha sido transformada en una evaluación temprana de una intervención eHealth para el manejo de la diabetes, que ha sido recientemente incluida en Repositorio de prácticas innovadoras del Partenariado de Innovación Europeo en Envejecimiento saludable y activo. La verificación de las 4 hipótesis ha permitido demonstrar la hipótesis principal de este trabajo de investigación: es posible contribuir a crear un puente entre la atención sanitaria y la innovación y, por lo tanto, mejorar la manera en que el cuidado crónico sea procurado en los sistemas sanitarios. ABSTRACT Nowadays, for the first time in history, most people can expect to live into their sixties and beyond (United Nations, 2015). However, little evidence suggests that older people are experiencing better health than their parents, and most of the health problems of older age are linked to Chronic Diseases (WHO, 2015). The established health care systems in developed countries are well suited to the treatment of acute diseases but are mostly inadequate for dealing with CDs. Healthcare systems are challenging the burden of chronic diseases by putting more emphasis on the prevention of disease and by looking for new ways to reorient the provision of care (Kane et al., 2005). According to an evidence-based review commissioned by the British NHS Institute, few models have conceptualized effective components of care for CDs and these components have been not structured and articulated. “Consequently, there is limited evidence about the real impact of any of the existing models” (Ham, 2006). Innovations could support to achieve better diagnosis, treatment and management for patients across the continuum of care, by supporting health professionals and empowering patients to take responsibility. However, the way they are delivered is not sufficiently efficient, effective and consumer friendly. The improvement of innovation delivery, involves the creation of multidisciplinary research teams and taskforces, rather than just working teams. There are several actions to improve the adoption of innovations from healthcare systems that are tackling the epidemics of CDs: 1) Translate Evidence-Based Healthcare (EBH) into actionable knowledge; 2) Face the complexity of healthcare through multidisciplinary research; 3) Identify a systematic approach to support effective implementation of healthcare interventions through innovation. The framework proposed in this research work is an attempt to provide these improvements. The following hypotheses have been drafted: Hypothesis 1: it is possible to define a translation process to convert a model of chronic care into a structured description of goals, requirements and key performance indicators. Hypothesis 2: a translation process, if executed through evidence-based, multidisciplinary, holistic and business-oriented elements, can convert a model of chronic care in a descriptive framework, which defines the whole development cycle of innovative solutions for chronic disease management. Hypothesis 3: it is possible to design a method to evaluate processes, outcomes and skill acquisition capacities, and assist multidisciplinary research teams in the creation of innovative solutions for chronic disease management. Hypothesis 4: it is possible to assist the development of innovative solutions for chronic disease management through a reference framework and produce positive effects, measured through key performance indicators. In order to verify the hypotheses, a methodological approach, composed of four Phases that correspond to each one of the stated hypothesis, was defined. Prior to this, a “Phase 0”, consisting in a multi-domain and multi-disciplinary background analysis of the problem (i.e.: systematic adoption of innovation to chronic care), was carried out. During phase 1, in order to verify the first hypothesis, a Knowledge Translation Process (KTP) was developed, starting from the JBI Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) model of evidence-based healthcare was used (Pearson, 2005) and adding Four Innovation Blocks. These blocks represent an enriched description, added to the JBI model, to accelerate the transformation of evidence-healthcare through innovation; the innovation blocks are built on top of the conclusions drawn after Phase 0. The background analysis gave also indication on the materials and methods to be used for the execution of the KTP, carried out during phase 2, that translates the actual best available evidence for chronic care into action: this resulted in a descriptive Framework, which is a description of a model of chronic care (the Chronic Care Model was chosen, Wagner, 1996) in terms of goals, specified requirements and Key Performance Indicators, and articulated in the three development cycles of innovation (i.e. design, implementation and evaluation). Thanks to this result the second hypothesis was verified. During phase 3, in order to verify the third hypothesis, a mixed-method to evaluate multidisciplinary teams working on innovations for chronic care, was created, based on a mixed-method used for the evaluation of Multidisciplinary Translational Teams (Wooden, 2013). This method adds a procedural dimension to the descriptive component of the Framework, The result of this phase consisted in a draft version of the framework, ready to be tested in a real scenario. During phase 4, a single and multilevel case study, with participant-observation data collection, was carried out, in order to have a complete but at the same time multi-sectorial evaluation of the framework. The activities that the LifeStech research group carried out since 2008 to improve the management of diabetes have been selected as case study. The results achieved showed that the framework allowed to improve the research activities in different directions: the quality and quantity of the research publications that LifeStech has issued, have increased substantially; 2 project grants to improve the management of diabetes, have been assigned: the first is a grant funding applied research while the second is about accelerating innovations into the market; by using the assessment KPIs of the framework, the proof of concept validation of a prototype developed in a research project was transformed into an early stage assessment of innovative eHealth intervention for Diabetes Management, which has been recently included in the repository of innovative practice of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Health Ageing initiative. The verification of the 4 hypotheses lead to verify the main hypothesis of this research work: it is possible to contribute to bridge the gap between healthcare and innovation and, in turn, improve the way chronic care is delivered by healthcare systems.

Breast cancer teams:the impact of constitution, new cancer workload and methods of operation on their effectiveness

National guidance and clinical guidelines recommended multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) for cancer services in order to bring specialists in relevant disciplines together, ensure clinical decisions are fully informed, and to coordinate care effectively. However, the effectiveness of cancer teams was not previously evaluated systematically. A random sample of 72 breast cancer teams in England was studied (548 members in six core disciplines), stratified by region and caseload. Information about team constitution, processes, effectiveness, clinical performance, and members' mental well-being was gathered using appropriate instruments. Two input variables, team workload (P=0.009) and the proportion of breast care nurses (P=0.003), positively predicted overall clinical performance in multivariate analysis using a two-stage regression model. There were significant correlations between individual team inputs, team composition variables, and clinical performance. Some disciplines consistently perceived their team's effectiveness differently from the mean. Teams with shared leadership of their clinical decision-making were most effective. The mental well-being of team members appeared significantly better than in previous studies of cancer clinicians, the NHS, and the general population. This study established that team composition, working methods, and workloads are related to measures of effectiveness, including the quality of clinical care. © 2003 Cancer Research UK.

The use of economic evaluation in CAM : an introductory framework

Background For CAM to feature prominently in health care decision-making there is a need to expand the evidence-base and to further incorporate economic evaluation into research priorities. In a world of scarce health care resources and an emphasis on efficiency and clinical efficacy, CAM, as indeed do all other treatments, requires rigorous evaluation to be considered in budget decision-making. Methods Economic evaluation provides the tools to measure the costs and health consequences of CAM interventions and thereby inform decision making. This article offers CAM researchers an introductory framework for understanding, undertaking and disseminating economic evaluation. The types of economic evaluation available for the study of CAM are discussed, and decision modelling is introduced as a method for economic evaluation with much potential for use in CAM. Two types of decision models are introduced, decision trees and Markov models, along with a worked example of how each method is used to examine costs and health consequences. This is followed by a discussion of how this information is used by decision makers. Conclusions Undoubtedly, economic evaluation methods form an important part of health care decision making. Without formal training it can seem a daunting task to consider economic evaluation, however, multidisciplinary teams provide an opportunity for health economists, CAM practitioners and other interested researchers, to work together to further develop the economic evaluation of CAM.