Interdisciplinary Teams question

[Goobernut]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hello everyone, long story short I'm part of a pilot program. It is a program for training health affiliated professionals (MD, OT, SP, PA/NP... you get the picture) how to work in interdisciplinary teams. I was selected as part of this training through my master's program.

So, my question to you all (other than personality issues) what has made or broken an interdisciplinary team you worked on? If you had your dream team, what professionals would it consist of? I've done a ton of my own research on team models, but really they all seem to reflect that each team member should be educated on the other team members duties and understand when to hand off to another professional. If there are continuing issues then the team will meet as a whole to discuss (or a meeting is called when someone thinks it is). However, the main components are (seem to be?) understanding roles and trust between team members.

I promise this isn't a homework question as we are not graded 🙂 We went through one semester of training, and this next semester we are going to spend doing group practice at a local free health clinic. Any advice on how to navigate the team setting? Any tips on what not to do? Or any advice for a master's level student on what NOT to do?

As a side note, this is all set up through the university, none of us will be practicing outside the scope of our own discipline, or in an unsafe environment.

 

[erg923]

I think in the push for truely transdiciplinary work, some progressive folks have lost site of the fact that there does actually need to be leader of the team and that this person should be known to the patient as well. I did some training last year (led by school of social work at the State U here) and they kept trying to push this ridiclous model that ID teams should simply be "everyone working together" and that no person should really be dominate in the planning or organzational presentation of info. I thought this was stupid and just plain unrealistic.

 

[erg923]

In terms of what makes for inefficient or just plain poor teams, other than the big one you mentioned, would be lack of communication outside of team meetings (most of the actual work, communications, and negotiations are done outside the meeting), poor organization (both at the institutional level and at the individual level), poor staff morale, high staff turnover, and a focus on limitations of the enviorment or other proferssionals vs focusing soley on what best for the patient.

If I had a nickel for every idea that was shot down in a meeting because person X complains that person Y and person Z wont follow through or be able to that...so why even bother?

 

[docma]

Hello everyone, long story short I'm part of a pilot program. It is a program for training health affiliated professionals (MD, OT, SP, PA/NP... you get the picture) how to work in interdisciplinary teams. I was selected as part of this training through my master's program.

So, my question to you all (other than personality issues) what has made or broken an interdisciplinary team you worked on? If you had your dream team, what professionals would it consist of? I've done a ton of my own research on team models, but really they all seem to reflect that each team member should be educated on the other team members duties and understand when to hand off to another professional. If there are continuing issues then the team will meet as a whole to discuss (or a meeting is called when someone thinks it is). However, the main components are (seem to be?) understanding roles and trust between team members.

I promise this isn't a homework question as we are not graded 🙂 We went through one semester of training, and this next semester we are going to spend doing group practice at a local free health clinic. Any advice on how to navigate the team setting? Any tips on what not to do? Or any advice for a master's level student on what NOT to do?

As a side note, this is all set up through the university, none of us will be practicing outside the scope of our own discipline, or in an unsafe environment.

I've worked with interdisciplinary teams throughout my career and have found it invaluable for many reasons. I am so glad psychology is now figuring out how to prepare trainees to be good team players. Key elements for navigating are humility, a sense of humor, and willingness to simply add your observations to the commonly shared case/problem. What not to do: act as if/think that one profession's perspective is "better" than the others or that having a D in your credential means you know the most. As a master's level student: present what you see/know from the perspective of beginner's mind: "I am new to this so maybe this isn't relevant--but some research I read recently suggested maybe......." Other professions will not devalue what we bring if we enter with a collaborative attitude and mutual respect.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I spend a great deal of time working on interdisciplinary teams and having an understood and accepted structure in regard to roles on the team. This doesn't mean everything has to be rigid, but teams can fall into chaos if there are too many cooks in the kitchen. There will always be crossover in areas (OT, SLP, and Rehab/Neuropsych will all comment on cognation…but in different ways), so it is important that team members learn have to co-exist and leverage each discipline's strengths.

Team dynamics will also be a fluid thing, with issues and synergies (yeah…I just said synergies!) seem to cycle in and out. Hopefully the setup will be a net positive, but it can really be difficult if you get stuck on a dysfunctional team because your work can be negatively impacted by others.