Identifying characteristics and practices of multidisciplinary team reviews for patients with severe mental illness: a systematic review

Author:

Woody Charlotte A1,Baxter Amanda J2,Harris Meredith G3,Siskind Dan J4,Whiteford Harvey A5

Affiliation:

1. Research Officer, Policy and Epidemiology Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Wacol, QLD, and; School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia

2. Research Fellow, Policy and Epidemiology Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Wacol, QLD, and; School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia

3. Associate Professor, School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, and; Policy and Epidemiology Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Wacol, QLD, Australia

4. Clinical Academic Psychiatrist, Metro South Addiction and Mental Health Services, Brisbane, QLD, and; Associate Professor, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, and; Policy and Epidemiology Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Wacol, QLD, Australia

5. Professor of Population Mental Health, School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, and; Policy and Epidemiology Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Wacol, QLD, and; Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Abstract

Objectives: Multidisciplinary teams in mental health receive limited guidance, leading to inconsistent practices. We undertook a systematic review of the characteristics and practices of multidisciplinary team reviews for patients with severe mental illness or in relevant mental health service settings. Methods: Sources published since 2000 were located via academic database and web searches. Results were synthesised narratively. Results: A total of 14 sources were analysed. Important characteristics and practices identified included routine monitoring and evaluation, good communication, equality between team members, and clear documentation practices. Success factors included defined leadership and clear team goals. Four sources described considerations for patients with complex clinical needs, including allocating sufficient time for discussion, maintaining connections with community providers, and ensuring culturally sensitive practices. Conclusions: No single best practice model was found, due to variations in team caseload, casemix, and resourcing levels. However, key ingredients for success were proposed. Sources were mostly descriptive; there remains a lack of evidence-based guidance regarding multidisciplinary team review characteristics and practices.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3