Interprofessional teamwork in medical rehabilitation: a comparison of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary team approach

Abstract

Objective: To compare multi- and interdisciplinary team approaches concerning team process (teamwork) and team effectiveness (team performance and staff satisfaction) in German medical rehabilitation clinics.

Design: A cross-sectional study with a descriptive—explorative design.

Setting: Eighteen medical rehabilitation clinics divided into two groups (somatic and psychosomatic indication fields).

Subjects: The 18 head physicians or psychotherapists in the clinics and their complete rehabilitation teams (n = 824).

Main measures: An interview guide was designed to determine the team approach in a telephone interview. A staff questionnaire for team members measured teamwork and team effectiveness with psychometrically validated questionnaires and self-administered items.

Results: All 18 head physicians took part in the telephone interview. The response rate of the employee attitude survey averaged 46% (n = 378). Eight teams were categorized as multidisciplinary and seven teams as interdisciplinary. In three cases the results were ambiguous. These teams were not considered in the further study. As expected, the interdisciplinary team approach showed significantly better results for nearly all aspects of teamwork and team effectiveness in comparison with the multidisciplinary team approach. The differences between multi- and interdisciplinary approach concerning teamwork and team effectiveness were higher in the somatic (8 teams, n = 183) than in the psychosomatic indication fields (7 teams, n = 195).

Conclusions: Teamwork and team effectiveness are higher in teams working with the interdisciplinary team approach. Therefore the interdisciplinary approach can be recommended, particularly for clinics in the somatic indication field. Team development can help to move from the multidisciplinary to the interdisciplinary approach.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

King JC , Nelson TR , Heye ML , Turturro TC , Titus MND. Prescriptions, referrals, order writing, and the rehabilitation team function . In DeLisa JA , Gans BM. eds. Rehabilitation medicine: principles and practice . Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven , 1998, 269-85.

Mickan S. , Rodger S. The organizational context for teamwork: comparing health care and business literature. Aust Health Rev 2000; 23: 179-92.

Norrefalk JR

How do we define multidisciplinary rehabilitation?

J Rehabil Med 2003; 35: 100-102.

Wade DT

Research into rehabilitation. What is the priority?

Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 229-32.

Halper AS Teams and teamwork. Health care settings. ASHA 1993; 35: 34, 48.

Hibbert E. , Arnaud SS , Dharampaul S. Nurses’ satisfaction with the patient care team. Can J Rehabil 1994; 8: 87-95.

DeLisa JA , Currie DM , Martin GM Rehabilitation medicine. Past, present and future. In DeLisa JA , Gans BM. eds. Rehabilitation medicine: principles and practice . Philadelphia : Lippincott-Raven , 1998, 3-31.

Melvin JL Status report on interdisciplinary rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989; 70: 273-6.

Bakheit AMO. Effective teamwork in rehabilitation. Int J Rehabil Res 1996; 19: 301-6.

10.

Davis A. , Davis S. , Moss N. et al. First steps towards an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation . Clin Rehabil 1992; 6: 237-44.

11.

Rothberg JS The rehabilitation team: future directions . Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1981; 62: 407-10.

12.

McGrath JR , Davis AM

Rehabilitation: where are we going and how do we get there?

Clin Rehabil 1992; 6: 225-35.

13.

Mullins LL , Balderson BHK , Chaney JM Implementing team approaches in primary and tertiary care settings: applications from the rehabilitation context. Fam Syst Health 1999; 17: 413-26.

14.

Nijhuis BJG , Reinders-Messelink HA , de Blécourt AC et al. A review of salient elements definig team collaboration in paediatric rehabilitation . Clin Rehabil 2007; 21: 195-211.

15.

Porter-O-Grady T. , Alexander DR , Blaylock J. , Minkara N. , Surel D. Constructing a team model. Creating a foundation for evidence-based teams. Nurs Adm Q 2006; 30: 211-20.

16.

Xyrichs A. , Ream E. Teamwork: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 2008 ; 61: 232-41.

17.

Vyt A. Interprofessional and transdisciplinary teamwork in health care. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2008; 24: 106-9.

18.

Dalley J. , Sim J. Nurses’ perceptions of physiotherapists as rehabilitation team members . Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 380-9.

19.

Hall P. Interprofessional teamwork: professional cultures as barriers. J Interprof Care 2005; suppl 1: 188-96.

20.

Bleakley A. , Boyden J. , Hobbs A. , Walsh L. , Allard J. Improving teamwork climate in operating theatres: the shift from multiprofessionalism to interprofessionalism . J Interprof Care 2006; 50: 461-70.

21.

Halstead LS , Rintala DH , Kanellos M. et al. The innovative rehabilitation team: an experiment in team building. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1986; 67: 357-61.

22.

Roelofsen EE , The BAM , Beckerman H. , Lankhorst GJ , Bouter LM Development and implementation of the Rehabilitation Activities Profile for children: impact on the rehabilitation team. Clin Rehabil 2002; 16: 441-53.

23.

Kauffeld S. FAT - Fragebogen zur Arbeit im Team. Göttingen : Hogrefe, 2004.

24.

Farin E. , Meixner K. , Follert P. , Jäckel WH , Jacob A. Mitarbeiterzufriedenheit in Rehabilitationskliniken: Entwicklung des MiZuReha-Fragebogens und Anwendung in der Qualitätssicherung. Rehabilitation 2002; 41: 258-67.

25.

Farin E. , Meixner K. , Jäckel WH Fragebogen zur Mitarbeiterzufriedenheit in Rehabilitationskliniken - Version 2.0. Freiburg: Abteilung für Qualitätsmanagement und Sozialmedizin. Unveröffentlichter Fragebogen, Abteilung für Qualitätsmanagement und Sozialmedizin in Freiburg , 2000.

26.

Gair G. , Hartery T. Medical dominance in multidisciplinary teamwork: a case study of discharge decision-making in a geriatric assessment unit. J Nurs Manage 2001; 9: 3-11.

27.

Farrell MP , Schmitt MH , Heinemann GD Informal roles and the stages of interdisciplinary team development . J Interprof Care 2001; 15: 281-95.

28.

Diller R. Fostering the interdisciplinary team, fostering research in society in transition . Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990 ; 71: 275-8.

29.

Roelofsen EE , Lankhorst GJ , Bouter LM Translation and adaption of a questionnaire to assess the group processes of rehabilitation team conferences . Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 148-55.

30.

Poulton BC , West MA The determinants of effectiveness in primary health care teams. J Interprof Care 1999; 13: 7-18.

31.

Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Rehabilitation. Praxishilfe Teamentwicklung in der Rehabilitation. Frankfurt: Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Rehabilitation , 2000.

32.

Muthny FA , Mariolakou A. Pflegekräfte in der stationären Rehabilitation - Arbeitszufriedenheit, Motivation fur interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit und für den Erwerb psychosozialer Kompetenz. Pflege 2002; 15: 61-8.

33.

Devine DJ , Clayton LD , Philips JL , Dunford BB , Melner SB Teams in organizations: prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness . Small Group Res 1999; 30: 6788-811.