Shared Care and Interprofessional Practice

How do speech-and-language therapists address the psychosocial well-being of people with aphasia? Results of a UK online survey

“…Nonetheless, this still represents an increase from ten years earlier, when Brumfitt () reported only 3% of UK SLTs reported working collaboratively with a psychologist and/or social worker. There may be challenges to developing effective collaborative working practices, such as anxiety about professional boundaries, different philosophical approaches, workload pressures, and structures and procedures that do not facilitate collaborative working (Simpson ). Various strategies have been found to facilitate inter‐professional practice including: open discussion of roles and responsibilities, including role shadowing; joint learning, care‐planning and decision making in a safe, respectful environment; identifying areas of potential conflict and establishing mechanisms for resolving differences; and strong consensual leadership that values the different professions (Simpson ).…”

Membership and management: structures of inter-professional working in community mental health teams for older people in England

“…Specifically, formally integrated teams have been linked with improved decisionmaking and problem-solving; improved referral processes between specialisms (both more appropriate, and more timely); improved person-centered care through a more holistic perspective of service user needs; and greater continuity in treatment, resulting in improved satisfaction and reduced bed use (Onyett and Ford, 1996;Miller et al, 2001;Simpson, 2006). Specifically, formally integrated teams have been linked with improved decisionmaking and problem-solving; improved referral processes between specialisms (both more appropriate, and more timely); improved person-centered care through a more holistic perspective of service user needs; and greater continuity in treatment, resulting in improved satisfaction and reduced bed use (Onyett and Ford, 1996;Miller et al, 2001;Simpson, 2006).…”

“…The least formalized arrangements involve groups of practitioners from separate single-discipline teams working together through flexible mechanisms to discuss cases which may require wider expertise (Ovretveit, 1993). Such “network” teams may not have firm terms of reference or compulsory membership and may have a rotating “coordinator” arranging and chairing meetings, rather than a formal team leader (Simpson, 2006). Membership may be regarded as “sessional,” reflecting only a partial commitment of staff time to such teams.…”

“…The membership and management structures adopted by teams are important, with research broadly indicating benefits to more formal multidisciplinary team working, but with obstacles to be overcome. Specifically, formally integrated teams have been linked with improved decision-making and problem-solving; improved referral processes between specialisms (both more appropriate, and more timely); improved person-centered care through a more holistic perspective of service user needs; and greater continuity in treatment, resulting in improved satisfaction and reduced bed use (Onyett and Ford, 1996; Miller et al ., 2001; Simpson, 2006). Moreover, it is believed that older people with mental illness are particularly likely to benefit from formal integrated working since they are among the largest users of general medical and social care (in addition to specialist mental health) services, and so may be most at risk from fragmented care (Department of Health and Care Services Improvement Partnership, 2005).…”

Exploring the value of mental health nurses working in primary care in England: A qualitative study

“…Specifically, the study identified problems in referrals between the PCLN service and secondary care. This suggests that the PCLN service, clinicians referring to the service and commissioners—along with other stakeholders—may benefit from working towards ensuring clearer and more consistently understood criteria and developing agreed local protocols (Simpson, ).…”