Communication in interprofessional rehabilitation teams: a scoping review

References

• Croker A, Trede F, Higgs J. Collaboration: what is it like? - Phenomenological interpretation of the experience of collaborating within rehabilitation teams. J Interprof Care. 2012;26(1):13–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duckett S, Sharon W. The Australian health care system. 4th ed. South Melbourne (Victoria): Oxford University Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• San Martín-Rodríguez L, Beaulieu M-D, D’Amour D, et al. The determinants of successful collaboration: a review of theoretical and empirical studies. J Interprof Care. 2005;19(sup1):132–147.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alberts MJ, Latchaw RE, Selman WR, et al. Recommendations for comprehensive stroke centers: a consensus statement from the Brain Attack Coalition. Stroke. 2005;36(7):1597–1616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Health. National stroke strategy. London: Department of Health; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsay P, Bayley M, Hellings C, et al. Canadian best practice recommendations for stroke care (updated 2008). CMAJ. 2008;179(12):S1–S25.
   Google Scholar
• National Stroke Foundation. Clinical guidelines for stroke management 2017. Melbourne, (Australia): National Stroke Foundation; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Royal College of Physicians. National clinical guideline for stroke. 2nd ed. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2004. eng.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson A, Worrall L, Sherratt S. The impact of communication disability on interdisciplinary discussion in rehabilitation case conferences. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(22):1795–1807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent F, Francis-Cracknell A, McDonald R, et al. How do interprofessional student teams interact in a primary care clinic? A qualitative analysis using activity theory. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016;21(4):749–760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen SG, Bailey DE. What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. J Manag. 1997;23(3):239–290.
   Google Scholar
• Korner M, Butof S, Muller C, et al. Interprofessional teamwork and team interventions in chronic care: a systematic review. J Interprof Care. 2016;30(1):15–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West MA, Lyubovnikova J. Illusions of team working in health care. J Health Org Manag. 2013;27(1):134–142.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lemieux-Charles L, McGuire WL. What do we know about health care team effectiveness? A review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(3):263–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams SK. Disciplinarily hetero-and homogeneous design team convergence: communication patterns and perceptions of teamwork [PhD dissertation]. Blacksburg (VA): Virginia Tech; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA. Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(2):535–546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marlow SL, Lacerenza CN, Paoletti J, et al. Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes. 2018;144:145–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Daniel M, Rosenstein AH. Professional communication and team collaboration. In: Patient safety and quality: an evidence-based handbook for nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Hamida NZA, Rasidb SZA, Maonc S, et al. Interprofessional Communication and Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC) among Health Care Professionals. Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Business and Economics. Selangor: Future Academy; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke DJ. Achieving teamwork in stroke units: the contribution of opportunistic dialogue. J Interprof Care. 2010;24(3):285–297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter SK, Brumfitt SM. Benefits and losses: a qualitative study exploring healthcare staff perceptions of teamworking. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17(2):127–130.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barreca S, Velikonja D, Brown L, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of two clinical training procedures to elicit yes/no responses from patients with a severe acquired brain injury: a randomized single-subject design. Brain Injury. 2003;17(12):1065–1075.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molyneux J. Interprofessional teamworking: what makes teams work well? J Interprof Care. 2001;15(1):29–35.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pryor J. A nursing perspective on the relationship between nursing and allied health in inpatient rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(4):314–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suddick KM, De Souza LH. Therapists’ experiences and perceptions of teamwork in neurological rehabilitation: critical happenings in effective and ineffective teamwork. J Interprof Care. 2007;21(6):669–686.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barnard R, Jones J, Cruice M. Communication between therapists and nurses working in inpatient interprofessional teams: systematic review and meta-ethnography. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42(10):1339–1349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franz S, Muser J, Thielhorn U, et al. Inter-professional communication and interaction in the neurological rehabilitation team: a literature review. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42(11):1607–1615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose A, Soundy A, Rosewilliam S. Shared decision-making within goal-setting in rehabilitation: a mixed-methods study. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33(3):564–574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meng X, Chen X, Liu Z, et al. Nursing practice in stroke rehabilitation: perspectives from multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals . Nurs Health Sci. 2020;22(1):28–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tennison JM, Ngo‐Huang A, Fu JB, et al. Frequency and characteristics of recommendations from interdisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation monthly team meetings. PM R. 2019;11(3):252–257.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Digby R, Bolster D, Perta A, et al. The perspective of allied health staff on the role of nurses in subacute care. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(21–22):4089–4099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Digby R, Bolster D, Hughes L, et al. Examining subacute nurses’ roles in a changing healthcare context. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(13–14):2260–2274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hustoft M, Biringer E, Gjesdal S, et al. Relational coordination in interprofessional teams and its effect on patient-reported benefit and continuity of care: a prospective cohort study from rehabilitation centres in Western Norway. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):719.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hustoft M, Biringer E, Gjesdal S, et al. The effect of team collaboration and continuity of care on health and disability among rehabilitation patients: A longitudinal survey-based study from western Norway [Health & Mental Health Services 3370]. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(10):2773–2785.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison S, Dourish P. editors. Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in collaborative systems. Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work; 1996; New York (NY): ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Kuutti K. Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In: Nardi B, editor. Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1996. p. 17–44.
   Google Scholar
• Susi T, Ziemke T. Social cognition, artefacts, and stigmergy: a comparative analysis of theoretical frameworks for the understanding of artefact-mediated collaborative activity. Cognit Syst Res. 2001;2(4):273–290.
   Google Scholar
• Nancarrow SA, Enderby B, Ariss S, et al. The impact of enhancing effectiveness of interdisciplinary working. Final Report. In: Programme NSDaO, editor. London: HMSO; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Nijhuis B, Reinders-Messelink H, de Blecourt A, et al. A review of salient elements defining team collaboration in paediatric rehabilitation [Literature Review; Systematic Review]. Clin Rehabil. 2007;21(3):195–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma R, Gordon M, Dharamsi S, et al. Systematic reviews in medical education: a practical approach: AMEE guide 94. Med Teach. 2015;37(2):108–124. Feb
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, et al. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Geneva: WHO; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Singh H, Sittig DF. Measuring and improving patient safety through health information technology: the Health IT Safety Framework. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(4):226–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fatmi M, Hartling L, Hillier T, et al. The effectiveness of team-based learning on learning outcomes in health professions education: BEME Guide No. 30. Med Teach. 2013;35(12):e1608–e1624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan SE, Bosch M, Buchan H, et al. Measuring team factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23. Med Teach. 2012;34(6):e421–e444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosley C, Dewhurst C, Molloy S, et al. What is the impact of structured resuscitation training on healthcare practitioners, their clients and the wider service? A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 20. Med Teach. 2012;34(6):e349–e385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tai J, Molloy E, Haines T, et al. Same-level peer-assisted learning in medical clinical placements: a narrative systematic review. Med Educ. 2016;50(4):469–484. Apr
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–1251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, et al. ‘Trying to pin down jelly’ - exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):46.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walsh D, Downe S. Appraising the quality of qualitative research. Midwifery. 2006;22(2):108–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• France EF, Ring N, Thomas R, et al. A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):116–119.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Durning SJ, et al. Knowledge syntheses in medical education: demystifying scoping reviews. Acad Med. 2017;92(2):161–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson W, Brown A. Working with qualitative data. London: Sage; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Denniston C, Molloy E, Nestel D, et al. Learning outcomes for communication skills across the health professions: a systematic literature review and qualitative analysis. Brit Med J Open. 2017;7:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller K-L, Kontos PC. The intraprofessional and interprofessional relations of neurorehabilitation nurses: a negotiated order perspective. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(8):1797–1807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheehan D, Robertson L, Ormond T. Comparison of language used and patterns of communication in interprofessional and multidisciplinary teams. J Interprof Care. 2007;21(1):17–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Papadimitriou C, Cott C. Client-centred practices and work in inpatient rehabilitation teams: results from four case studies. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(13):1135–1143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyson SF, Greenhalgh J, Long AF, et al. The influence of objective measurement tools on communication and clinical decision making in neurological rehabilitation. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(2):216–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koerner M, Wirtz M, Michaelis M, et al. A multicentre cluster-randomized controlled study to evaluate a train-the-trainer programme for implementing internal and external participation in medical rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 2014;28(1):20–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nair KPS, Wade DT. Satisfaction of members of interdisciplinary rehabilitation teams with goal planning meetings. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(11):1710–1713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bull MJ, Roberts J. Components of a proper hospital discharge for elders. J Adv Nurs. 2001;35(4):571–581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long AF, Kneafsey R, Ryan J, et al. The role of the nurse within the multi-professional rehabilitation team. J Adv Nurs. 2002;37(1):70–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angarita FA, Elmi M, Zhang Y, et al. Patient-reported factors influencing the treatment decision-making process of older women with non-metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171(3):545–564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair LB, Lingard LA, Mohabeer RN. What’s so great about rehabilitation teams? An ethnographic study of interprofessional collaboration in a rehabilitation unit. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(7):1196–1201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton V, Hogden A, Long JC, et al. Clinicians’ perceptions of rounding processes and effectiveness of clinical communication. J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;26(3):801–811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wertheimer JC, Roebuck-Spencer TM, Constantinidou F, et al. Collaboration between neuropsychologists and speech-language pathologists in rehabilitation settings. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2008;23(5):273–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abreu BC, Zhang L, Seale G, et al. Interdisciplinary meetings: investigating the collaboration between persons with brain injury and treatment teams. Brain Inj. 2002;16(8):691–704.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz LC, Fine JS, Nori S. Barriers to discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: a teamwork approach. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2017;30(2):137–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eftedal M, Kvaal AM, Ree E, et al. How do occupational rehabilitation clinicians approach participants on long-term sick leave in order to facilitate return to work? A focus group study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Careau E, Vincent C, Noreau L. Assessing interprofessional teamwork in a videoconference-based telerehabilitation setting. J Telemed Telecare. 2008;14(8):427–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalley J, Sim J. Nurses' perceptions of physiotherapists as rehabilitation team members. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15(4):380–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbon B. An investigation of interprofessional collaboration in stroke rehabilitation team conferences. J Clin Nurs. 1999;8(3):246–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jelles F, Van Bennekom C, Lankhorst G, et al. Staff satisfaction with team conferences: development of a questionnaire. Clin Rehabil. 1996;10(1):47–55.
   Google Scholar
• OECD-Development Assistance Committee. Evaluation and aid effectiveness. Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management. Paris: OECD-Development Assistance Committee; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Rose A, Rosewilliam S, Soundy A. Shared decision making within goal setting in rehabilitation settings: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(1):65–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camden C, Shikako-Thomas K, Nguyen T, et al. Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(15):1390–1400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum P. Family-centred research: what does it mean and can we do it? Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53(2):99–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobson S. Using a client-centered approach with persons with cognitive impairment. Client-Centred Practice in Occupational Therapy: a guide to implementation. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2006. p. 75–87.
   Google Scholar
• Kagan A. Supported conversation for adults with aphasia: methods and resources for training conversation partners. Aphasiology. 1998;12(9):816–830.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bright FA. Reconceptualising engagement: a relational practice with people experiencing communication disability after stroke. Auckland (New Zealand): Auckland University of Technology; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Bright FA, Kayes NM, Cummins C, et al. Co-constructing engagement in stroke rehabilitation: A qualitative study exploring how practitioner engagement can influence patient engagement [Empirical Study; Interview; Focus Group; Qualitative Study]. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(10):1396–1405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipson-Smith R, Zeeman H, Simondson J, et al. Design of Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities for Stroke Care: Results from the ENVIRONS Study (ENVironments for Inpatient RehabilitatiON of Stroke patients). Int J Stroke. 2019;14:12–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foronda C, MacWilliams B, McArthur E. Interprofessional communication in healthcare: AN integrative review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016;19:36–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conn LG, Lingard L, Reeves S, et al. Communication channels in general internal medicine: a description of baseline patterns for improved interprofessional collaboration. Qual Health Res. 2009;19(7):943–953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwarenstein M, Reeves S. Working together but apart: barriers and routes to nurse–physician collaboration. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28(5):242–247.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forsey M. Interviewing individuals. In Handbook of qualitative research in education. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves S, Goldman J, Gilbert J, et al. A scoping review to improve conceptual clarity of interprofessional interventions. J Interprof Care. 2011;25(3):167–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves S, Lewin S, Espin S, et al. Interprofessional teamwork for health and social care. Vol. 8. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Allen D, Karanasios S, Slavova M. Working with activity theory: context, technology, and information behavior. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2011;62(4):776–788.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström Y. Learning by expanding: an activity-theorical perspective. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar