Decision making in an interdisciplinary team

Chase, Sheldon; Wright, Jesse H.; Ragade, Rammohan K.

doi:10.1002/bs.3830260304

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The wording used as a reason of solicitation influenced the discussion and decision (Eagle & de Vries, 2005; Lynch et al, 2019; Winman & Rystedt, 2012). The ‘information’ label was attributed to 30 sources (Baggs et al, 2007; Banchet, 2011; Bentovim & Gilmour, 1981; Brick & Swinth, 1980; Bunch, 2000; Chase et al, 1981; Cook et al, 2001; Cranley et al, 2022; Doiret, 2005; Faith & Chidwick, 2009; Fiddick et al, 2020; Gair & Hartery, 2001; Gerace et al, 2013; Gomas, 2001; Greenhalgh et al, 2008; Heerschap et al, 2019; Kidger et al, 2009; Knowles & Gilmore, 1994; Lamb, Green, et al, 2011; Lamb, Brown, et al, 2011; Lamb, Sevdalis, et al, 2013; McClelland & Sands, 1993; Nikander, 2007; Oddi & Cassidy, 1998; Robertson et al, 1982; Scott et al, 2020; Simpson et al, 2013; Unsworth et al, 1995; Winman & Rystedt, 2012; Wong et al, 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interprofessional approach makes it possible to take the uniqueness of the patient into account in decision‐making. Determinants relating to patients were a key‐element in 23 sources (Bartholdson et al, 2021; Bell et al, 2007; Borrett & Gould, 2021; Chase et al, 1981; Colombo et al, 2003; Dimech et al, 2021; Eagle & de Vries, 2005; Forsgärde et al, 2021; Hagoel et al, 2011; Heath et al, 2016; Jensen et al, 2013; Lamb, Brown, et al, 2011; Lamb, Taylor, et al, 2013; Lanceley et al, 2008; Lee et al, 2021; Murray et al, 2019; Pattison & O'Gara, 2014; Robertson et al, 1982; Scott et al, 2020; Simpson et al, 2013; Stuber & Reed, 1991; Unsworth et al, 1995; Wong et al, 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interprofessional clinical decision‐making process in health: A scoping review

Bouchez,

Cagnon,

Hamouche

et al. 2023

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsTo describe the key elements of the interprofessional decision‐making process in health, based on published scientific studies. To describe the authors, reviews and subject matter of those publications.DesignScoping review of the literature.Data SourcesMEDLINE, APA Psycinfo OpenGrey, Lissa and Cochrane databases were searched in December 2019 and January 2023.Review MethodsReferences were considered eligible if they (i) were written in French or English, (ii) concerned health, (iii) studied a clinical decision‐making process, (iv) were performed in an interprofessional context. ‘PRISMA‐scoping review’ guidelines were respected. The eligible studies were analysed and classified by an inductive approachResultsWe identified 1429 sources of information, 145 of which were retained for the analysis. Based on these studies, we identified five key elements of interprofessional decision‐making in health. The process was found to be influenced by group dynamics, the available information and consideration of the unique characteristics of the patient. An organizational framework and specific training favoured improvements in the process.ConclusionDecision‐making can be based on a willingness of the healthcare organization to promote models based on more shared leadership and to work on professional roles and values. It also requires healthcare professionals trained in the entire continuum of collaborative practices, to meet the unique needs of each patient. Finally, it appears essential to favour the sharing of multiple sources of accessible and structured information. Tools for knowledge formalization should help to optimize interprofessional decision‐making in health.ImpactThe quality of a team decision‐making is critical to the quality of care. Interprofessional decision‐making can be structured and improved through different levels of action. These improvements could benefit to patients and healthcare professionals in every settings of care involving care collaboration.Impact StatementInterprofessional decision‐making in health is an essential lever of quality of care, especially for the most complex patients which are a contemporary challenge. This scoping review article offers a synthesis of a large corpus of data published to date about the interprofessional clinical decision‐making process in healthcare. It has the potential to provide a global vision, practical data and a list of references to facilitate the work of healthcare teams, organizations and teachers ready to initiate a change.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interprofessional clinical decision‐making process in health: A scoping review

Bouchez,

Cagnon,

Hamouche

et al. 2023

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Between Silence and Voice: Communicating in Cross‐Functional Project Teams

Loehr

2015

Writing and Speaking in the Technology Professions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trying to remodel the children and youth service system: Observations about barriers and opportunities

Sarata¹,

Provorse²

1991

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From their perspective as participant observers, the authors discuss the initial phase of an attempt to remodel the chilafamily mental health service delivery system. Conceptualizing families as being at varying levels of risk for dismemberment is seen as: (a) providing a politically viable terminology, (b) permitting each agency to develop a continuum of services tailored to its mandate and clientele, and (c) facilitating legislative efforts to analyze simultaneously the budgets of all those state agencies with major responsibilities for children's services. A planning team endorsed cooperative planning between a state-level coordinating council and individual locales. Cultural communities were invited to participate in a manner paralleling the planning role of local communities. A model for a free standing case management entity is proposed. The concept of empowerment is discussed as a criterion for multi-level outcome evaluation.Fiscal structures and available dollars drive services. Those categories of services which are reimbursable are made available through public agencies and private providers. Children who require assistance are referred for the types of services that are available even if those services do not constitute a particularly effective response to the dilemma being experienced.Fiscal structures and fbnding patterns do not self-generate spontaneously. Nor do they persist in a vacuum. Rather, they function as part of a complex system in which the number of recipients-rather than estimates of treatment effectivenessis cited as evidence that a service is worthwhile. Associated with each currently available service is a constituency comprised of recipients, providers, and sponsors. These constituencies understand the universe of dilemmas requiring remediation Brian Sarata, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of ClinicaKommunity Psychology and Dave Provorse, M.A., is a doctoral student in Clinical/Community Psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA. This article is based upon a paper originally written in July 1988, when the authors were completing a year-long involvement with the Nebraska Intergovernmental and Community Planning Process for Families and Children. The decision to make only editorial changes and not alter the basic content of the original paper to update subsequent events in Nebraska reflects the belief that our participantobserver perspective offers a unique view of attempts to reform a mental health system and that a discussion of subsequent developments-observed from a different role perspective-would change the nature of this paper. Address reprint requests and correspondence to Professor

show abstract

Decision making in an interdisciplinary team

Cited by 11 publications

References 21 publications

Interprofessional clinical decision‐making process in health: A scoping review

Interprofessional clinical decision‐making process in health: A scoping review

Between Silence and Voice: Communicating in Cross‐Functional Project Teams

Trying to remodel the children and youth service system: Observations about barriers and opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About