This art icle was downloaded by: [ 82.141.228.209]
On: 18 February 2014, At : 03: 06
Publisher: Rout ledge
I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered
office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Social Work
Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions for aut hors and
subscript ion informat ion:
ht t p:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ cesw20
Consensus or contention: an
exploration of multidisciplinary team
functioning in an Irish mental health
context
Alan Maddock
a
a
School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinit y College, Dublin,
Ireland
Published online: 12 Feb 2014.
To cite this article: Alan Maddock , European Journal of Social Work (2014): Consensus or
cont ent ion: an explorat ion of mult idisciplinary t eam funct ioning in an Irish ment al healt h cont ext ,
European Journal of Social Work, DOI: 10.1080/ 13691457.2014.885884
To link to this article: ht t p:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 13691457.2014.885884
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE
Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he
“ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis,
our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o
t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions
and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors,
and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent
should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources
of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s,
proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or
howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising
out of t he use of t he Cont ent .
This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any
subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing,
syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s &
Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm sand- condit ions
European Journal of Social Work, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2014.885884
Consensus or contention: an exploration of multidisciplinary team
functioning in an Irish mental health context
Alan Maddock*
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are conventionally recommended in mental health
care literature as an important way to offer holistic treatment provision to patients. This
study aims to explore multidisciplinary teamwork in contemporary mental health
settings, particularly what aids and hinders the process of multidisciplinary teamworking, and the social work contribution in such teams. In order to attain an in-depth
exploration of these phenomena, a single case study design was employed. Within this
design, data were generated through semi-structured interviews and structured
observation of a mental health MDT in Ireland. These data were analysed using
interpretative phenomenological analysis. The research highlights how the concept of
mental illness is contested within this MDT, with the medical model dominant within
an environment of fluid working arrangements. Professional role blurring and
stereotyping were found to impact the division of labour on this team, with role
negotiation found to be an integral part of retaining a professional’s practice identity.
This research raises concerns for social work’s capacity to function within mental
health MDTs in Ireland, and highlights ways in which social work educators might
respond in order to empower Irish social workers to meet the challenges of mental
health multidisciplinary teamworking.
Keywords: mental health; bio-psycho-social; multidisciplinary teams; social work
Introduction
Irish mental health services in line with the general trend throughout the EU-25 is shifting
from an institutional model towards a comprehensive, integrated, community-based
model of care (Mental Health Commission, 2010). The Irish government’s current policy
document on mental health Vision for Change (Department of Health and Children, 2006)—
which broadly echoes academic literature and policy within the EU-25 (Knapp, McDaid,
Mossialos, & Thornicroft, 2007)—and its two policy predecessors Commission of Inquiry
on Mental Illness (Department of Health, 1966) and The Psychiatric Services: Planning
for the Future (Department of Health, 1984), have recommended a recovery oriented,
bio-psycho-social model of mental health care provided by different professional
disciplines, such as psychiatrists, social workers (SWs) and psychologists within the
context of an egalitarian community-based, multidisciplinary mental health teams. In this
provision structure, Vision for Change (Department of Health and Children, 2006)
emphasises full team participation in order to facilitate holistic bio-psycho-social
discussions on patient assessment and care planning, with the consultant psychiatrist
*Email: maddocka@tcd.ie
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
2
A. Maddock
(CP) acting as a nominal team lead in order to coordinate the work of the team. Academic
literature generally argues that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) of this nature are the most
effective means of organising mental health services and offer numerous benefits to both
mental health patients and professionals working on the team such as an increased
capacity to: solve problems together through an open exchange of ideas (Colombo,
Bendelow, Fulford, & Williams, 2003), carry out comprehensive, holistic needs
assessments (Mental Health Commission, 2006) and meet identified needs with the
availability of a broader range of skills (Bailey, 2012). Empirical research data
substantiating these claims are sparse, however (Armstrong, de Burca, Flood, &
MacCurtain, 2007), due to the dearth of observational studies on how teams of this
nature function available (Shaw, Heyman, Reynolds, Davies, & Godin, 2007). The aims
of this study are: (1) to explore in-depth how a single mental health multidisciplinary
team functions, (2) to examine what factors aid and hinder the process of effective
multidisciplinary teamworking, with a specific emphasis on examining the factors which
influence the social work contribution on such a team and (3) if applicable suggest
relevant developmental responses which may be developed to improve mental health
MDT functioning in Ireland and the social work contribution to such teams.
Literature
Contested nature of mental health
Mental health is a highly contested and acrimonious phenomenon (Herron & Mortimer,
1999), with many different perspectives and frameworks which can be used when
speaking about mental normality and abnormality in society (Rogers & Pilgrim, 2005).
Medical, psychological and social approaches to mental illness are the three dominant
ideologies held by differing professional groups which have historically permeated
mental health practice (Rogers & Pilgrim, 2005). Each perspective is based upon differing
understandings of the etiology, nature and treatment of mental illness (Strauss, Schatzman, Bucher, Ehrlich, & Sabshin, 1981), with the level of individual professional support
for each model inextricably linked with their different professional culture and value
systems, developed in training and nurtured further by professional socialisation and
experience of working with mental disorder (Colombo et al., 2003).
Historically, community psychiatric nurses (CPN) and psychiatrists have been found
to clearly favour the medical approach, traditionally the dominant framework used in
mental health services (Kirk, 2005), while SWs supported the social model, and
psychologists the psychological model of mental health (Mental Health Commission,
2006; Strauss et al., 1981). The medical perspective has retained its hegemonic status in
mental health practice, despite the fact that there is minimal conclusive scientific evidence
confirming a biological basis for abnormal behaviour (Pollard, 2010). This fact highlights
how medicine is not necessarily justified as having a higher status when compared to
other mental health perspectives. As a consequence, the decision-making process
regarding the management, care and treatment of patients can become highly contested,
allowing the social and psychological models of mental health, and a combination of both
of these models in the form of a psycho-social perspective to compete for authority and
recognition alongside the traditional medical approach (Colombo et al., 2003).
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
European Journal of Social Work
3
Multidisciplinary teamworking issues in practice
There is a limited amount of empirical research evidence of effective mental health
MDT implementation in practice (Armstrong et al., 2007), with few observational studies
on how teams of this nature operate available (Shaw et al., 2007) to verify claims,
highlighted in the Irish context by Vision for Change (Department of Health and
Children, 2006), that multidisciplinary mental health teams are the most effective means
by which to organise patient service provisions. A review of the literature suggests that
the organisation of contemporary mental health MDTs around the world differs
significantly in practice from policy rhetoric, and is frequently characterised by
fragmentation (Molyneux, 2001), with practitioners in Ireland finding the structure,
function and practice of MDTs changing within and between teams from day-to-day
depending upon the personnel involved (Deady, 2012). Interprofessional collaboration on
such teams has been found to be inhibited by role blurring (Onyett, 2003), role rivalry,
power struggle, perceived imbalances of power where professionals have felt disempowered due to the perception that their capacity to negotiate new ways of working is
inhibited by medical dominance (Shaw et al., 2007), poor interprofessional communication (Bailey, 2012) and implicit adherence to differing models of mental health (Colombo
et al., 2003) which can generate tensions, conflicting assumptions and misunderstandings
between multidisciplinary groups about treatment provisions (Bailey, 2012). Professional
allegiances (Onyett, 2003), coalitions and culture clashes (Shaw et al., 2007) based on
stereotypical and ambiguous views of collaborators and their contributions have also been
found to be other barriers to effective collaboration (Karben, 2011).
Working in teams of this nature generally tended to elicit two professional reactions.
One response was an attempt to establish inflexible role demarcation based on
‘jurisdictional claims’, with a division of labour based on knowledge-based appeals of
professional expertise (Peck & Norman, 1999), allowing some professionals to control
tasks and activities against the claims of others (Hannigan & Allen, 2011) while also
ensuring that differing professional interests do not overlap, making their position
virtually impenetrable (Butler, 2005; Hannigan & Allen, 2011). Donnison, Thompson,
and Turpin (2009) found that this phenomenon was particularly pronounced when
clinicians found themselves ‘feeling threatened’ from other professions. The second
response was to allow role blurring to occur—the tendency for professional roles to
overlap when there is a shared body of knowledge amongst disciplines (Onyett, 2003)—
resulting in muddled role boundaries and overlapping responsibilities between professionals (Bailey, 2012).
Division of labour
As Pilgrim (2009) argues, the question of which mental health specialist shall treat whom,
how and under whose aegis is of crucial importance. Strauss et al. (1981) and Pilgrim
(2009) highlight how textbook perspectives tend to provide standard answers to this
question, with treatment for mental health problems implying a traditional division of
labour centred on medicine, for example, drug therapy flows from a medical diagnosis
and prescribed treatment controlled by psychiatrists, with other professional tasks
distributed amongst the team based on professional expertise.
However due to a lack of clear professional role and task allocation, the division of
labour on mental health MDTs has been found to be a fluid process (Byrne & Onyett,
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
4
A. Maddock
2010), with the jurisdictional areas of each profession requiring constant adjudication and
negotiation (Strauss et al., 1981). Though differences in authority, power and status
amongst team members may limit a professional’s capacity to influence the team (Byrne
& Onyett, 2010), it has been found that in order to retain their professional identity and
attain individual freedoms over practice team members need to subtly negotiate a number
of inter- and intraprofessional sensitivities on a daily basis (Scholes & Vaughan, 2002),
with the personality of the incumbent a key variable in successful role negotiation
(Deady, 2012). Reeves, Lewin, Espin, and Zwarenstein (2010) likened this process to a
political one, involving negotiation, bargaining and the formation and dissolution of
alliances, with Byrne and Onyett (2010) highlighting how the power to determine policy
is not clearly located in specific positions and often shifts in response to different issues
with the continuing dominance of any one profession not assured and the division of
labour always open to conflict, negotiation and change (Strauss et al., 1981).
Effective collaborative practice
Understanding and appreciating professional roles and effective interprofessional
communication have been found to be the two core competencies for patient-centred
collaborative practice (Suter et al., 2009). In order to ensure effective mental health
multidisciplinary teamworking, it is critical that teams contain professionals who have
these two core competencies, and can collaborate and coordinate client and family care
effectively (Mental Health Commission, 2010). However, while there is a widely
recognised need to train health professionals in these two core competencies, the
promotion of effective multidisciplinary practice within educational training and health
care settings is rare in Ireland (Mental Health Commission, 2010). This lack of planned
collaborative learning opportunities can lead to profession-centric practitioners experiencing very limited training opportunities to explore the roles of their teammates
(Pecukonis, Doyle, & Bliss, 2008), and without this mutual interprofessional understanding, meaningful communication and relationships have been found to be more difficult to
develop (Hall, 2005).
From a social work perspective, although clear guidelines and considerable
knowledge exist about communication and management of professional–client relationships in social work education (Diggins, 2004), little attention has been given by social
work educators and practice literature to the management of interaction and effective
communication with other professionals (Specht, 1985). The Mental Health Commission
(2010) also highlighted this as being the case in relation to social work education and
practice literature in Ireland. Communication skills taught to social work students in
Ireland usually focus on interactions with clients and their families from the perspective
of their profession (Hall, 2005), with relatively little focus on interprofessional
communication and collaboration skills (Mental Health Commission, 2010). Thus, SWs
in Ireland may begin their careers with interprofessional barriers (Mental Health
Commission, 2010), such as a lack of interprofessional communication, role negotiation
and collaboration skills (Specht, 1985).
Interprofessional education (IPE) has been found to transcend uni-professional
approaches to health professions education (Pecukonis et al., 2008). IPE emphasises
interactive learning with and from members of other professions to improve interprofessional practice and care delivery (Barr, 2005). Offering IPE early at university level is
considered key to the cultivation of an ethos of cooperation (Mental Health Commission,
European Journal of Social Work
5
2010), and to developing the core competencies outlined by Suter et al. (2009) of
understanding professional roles and effective interprofessional communication.
The research study
Methodology
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
Research design
In order to explore mental health MDT functioning the author employed a single case
study approach, utilising interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). IPA is a
strongly idiographic approach concerned with detailed analysis of single cases
(Biggerstaff & Thompson, 2008). IPA tries to understand how participants themselves
make sense of their experiences and explores individual personal perceptions of events
(Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). This research design was chosen due to its ability to
generate a detailed and in-depth understanding of a single multidisciplinary mental health
team in the Irish mental health service (Gerring, 2007) through the professional
perceptions and interpretations of those working on such a team (Krysik & Finn,
2010). In this case study, data were derived from open-ended semi-structured interviews
with professionals from a single multidisciplinary mental health team and through nonparticipant structured observation of these professionals in four consecutive weekly MDT
meetings.
Participants
Sampling for this study occurred at two levels. First, in line with the IPA and case study
methodology, a small sample of five research participants were purposively selected
(Berg, 2009). The criterion for selection was being a CP, SW, CPN, psychologist or
occupational therapist (OT) on the same mental health MDT. This sampling technique
was chosen in order to ensure that those interviewed were particularly knowledgeable
about the research questions being explored, which would lead to a higher quality of data
being obtained (Grinnell & Unrau, 2011).
Second, in order to gain access to a mental health MDT the author used convenience
sampling by initially approaching the principal mental health SW in a general hospital in
Ireland to discuss the research proposal. The principal SW then approached each mental
health MDT’s CP (the clinical lead on each team) to discuss the proposal. Preliminary
access to a team was granted by one of the CPs on the condition that all of the team
members consented to taking part. After discussing the research proposal with this team,
all five staff members on the team agreed to participate in the study, the CP, SW, CPN,
psychologist and OT. The mean number of years since qualification was 7 years, with the
CPN being an outlier, with 18 years’ experience.
Data collection
Observations and semi-structured interviews are the most commonly used data collection
methods in an IPA approach (Smith et al., 2009). The author utilised structured
observation, by sitting in on and observing four consecutive weekly inpatient MDT
meetings. The inpatient team meeting was selected as it would provide the best
opportunity to observe an environment in which each professional had the opportunity
to contribute to the assessment and development of care plans for each patient. During
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
6
A. Maddock
this non-participant structured observation, professional involvements in patient cases and
types of interactions between professionals during the team meeting were noted
quantitatively on a pre-prepared observation schedule. Using the research questions and
literature review as the coding basis for the observation schedule (Berg, 2009),
behaviours and interactions to be observed were categorised according to: (a) the
profession of the speaker, (b) which bio-psycho-social aspect of the patient’s life was
being discussed during assessment, (c) which model(s) of mental health were used in the
patient assessment process and in the development of patient care plans, (d) incidents of
interprofessional collaboration, (e) incidents of interprofessional disagreement, (f)
incidents of interprofessional role negotiation, and (g) incidents of hierarchical working
arrangements during the team meeting. The number of incidents in each category was
formatted proportionally and reported in the findings section as percentages. Field notes
of the researcher’s observations were also recorded. In this context, the medical aspect to
be observed comprised of statements about the patient’s medical or pathological condition
and possible medical treatment interventions such as medication (Blomqvist & Engstrom,
2012). The psychological aspect comprised of statements about the patient’s psychological condition such as personality, cognitive and affective functioning and possible
psychological interventions such as psychotherapy (Blomqvist & Engstrom, 2012). The
social aspect comprised statements about the patient’s living environment and concerned
information such as employment, housing, family and social networks and possible
interventions such as family therapy (Blomqvist & Engstrom, 2012). Professional
involvement in patient cases was coded by how often a professional’s formulation on
the patient’s assessment and suggested treatment intervention was noted in the patient’s
care plan. These observational categories were pre-selected in order to ascertain to what
extent: (1) each professional was involved in patient assessment and care planning, (2)
there were differing levels of professional input into these processes, (3) each model of
mental health was used in the formulation of patient assessments and care plans, (4) any
model(s) of mental health dominated in these processes, (5) professionals exhibited
dominance of, or submission to, other professionals on the team, (6) team members
disagreed on patient assessment and care planning decisions, (7) team members
collaborated and/or negotiated their professional roles in order to ensure that patient
assessments and care plan actions were completed.
The semi-structured interview contained 21 open-ended questions about the experience
of mental health multidisciplinary teamworking, exploring four of the main themes derived
from the literature: (1) mental health as a contested phenomenon, (2) multidisciplinary
teamworking issues in mental health, (3) division of labour on MDTs, and (4) effective
collaborative practice. The questions asked were open-ended in order to allow the
participant to set the parameters of the topic (Smith & Osborn, 2003). Interviews, lasting
between 60 and 90 minutes, continued until such a point that all areas of interest had been
explored. As a part of these interviews, data and the general themes generated by the
observation schedule were also verified with each participant, along with their interpretations and clarifications on some of their input during the team meetings.
Data analysis
The analysis of the semi-structured interviews was conducted according to IPA
methodology. Transcripts of each interview were read several times and preliminary
summary notes were made. Transcripts were then reread and preliminary themes were
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
European Journal of Social Work
7
identified. A master list of themes was produced for each transcript. Master lists were
compared and a final integrative set of themes emerged (Smith & Osborn, 2003). All of
the semi-structured interviews were then analysed using the final integrative set of themes
as a coding frame. In order to analyse the observational data collected from the structured
observations, a content analysis was employed. This process initially involved the
categorisation of data from the field notes into the same categories as already outlined in
the observation schedule. The frequency and duration of the various verbal and nonverbal
behaviours observed and noted using the observation schedules were then coded in the
analysis (Grinnell & Unrau, 2011). The coded field notes and coded data from the
observation schedule were then examined and interpreted in order to identify patterns,
themes and meanings (Berg, 2009). Six master themes, discussed below, emerged from
the data. These were ‘team meeting structure’, ‘contested nature of mental health’,
‘multidisciplinary teamworking issues in practice’, ‘division of labour’, ‘effective
collaborative practice’ and ‘factors specifically impacting the social worker’.
Limitations
Not all mental health MDTs will have exactly the same characteristics and will contain
their own idiosyncrasies. Therefore, using purposive and convenience sampling (which
are non-probability sampling approaches) and a single unit of analysis case study design
means that the findings from this research cannot be generalised to a larger population of
mental health MDTs (Grinnell & Unrau, 2011).
Ethics review
Ethical approval was sought and granted from the ethics committee of the School of
Social Work and Social Policy in Trinity College Dublin. In order to attain informed
consent, an information sheet about the purpose of the study was provided to each
participant to sign. The information sheet explained how the data would be used, what
participation would require of each potential participant, gave assurances on confidentiality and anonymity (which was attained by omitting the names of the research
participants and the mental health setting when reporting data and keeping records of any
interactions) with the proviso that the participant could withdraw from the study at any
time, or responses to particular questions could be omitted in the semi-structured
interview.
Findings and discussion
Team meeting structure
The MDT meeting had the same format each week. Prior to the patient coming into
the team meeting, the patient’s case was presented to the team by the CP.
The team then discussed the patient’s case history and tried to identify priorities in the
patient’s care. The patient was then brought to the team meeting and questions were
asked by the CP of the patient based on the prior professional discussion and
the priorities identified. When the patient left the team meeting, the team then discussed
the patient’s responses and how the patient appeared in the meeting and from there an
assessment was formulated and a care plan was created. In total, 36 patients were seen
during the team meetings observed. The CP saw every patient. The SW was present for
the duration of all of the team meetings, but did not see two patients because the CP saw
8
A. Maddock
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
one in the corridor outside on their own, and on another occasion the CP saw the patient
with the CPN before the team meeting. The OT and the CPN saw 28 and 21 out of the 36
patients, respectively. This was due to the fact that each professional had competing oneto-one patient appointments at the same time as the team meeting. Due to resource
constraints the psychologist, who was working across two MDTs and only attended
team meetings every 2 weeks, saw 18 out of the 36 patients. The input levels of
each professional were formatted proportionally when reporting findings, for example,
the psychologist’s input level was multiplied by a two as they attended half of the
meetings.
Contested nature of mental health
The interview and observation data highlighted a consensus amongst team members—
supporting Herron and Mortimer (1999) and Rogers and Pilgrim (2005)—that the concept
of mental health was contested on this team with different team members utilising
differing models of mental health. The CP and CPN both utilised a medical model of
mental health. The SW and OT utilised either a social or psycho-social model depending
on the patient’s needs. The psychologist utilised a psychological model. There was also a
consensus amongst the team that the medical model was the most dominant framework
used in team meetings, supporting Kirk (2005), with the SW outlining how ‘oftentimes
medication can be the sole type of treatment’ (SW). The dominance of the medical model
was supported by data derived from the observations. During assessment and care
planning phases of the team meetings, the medical model was utilised 65.02% of the
time, the social, psychological and combined psycho-social models were used 34.98%.
These findings support Colombo et al. (2003) who highlighted how the decision-making
process regarding the management, care and treatment of patients is contested, based on
the individual’s practice perspective of mental health, with the social, psychological and
psycho-social models of mental health competing for authority and recognition alongside
the traditional medical approach.
Multidisciplinary teamworking issues in practice
Vision for Change (Department of Health and Children, 2006) recommends that all
members of a team should be treated equally, with the CP only acting as a nominal leader
who coordinates the work of the team. However data from the interviews highlight how
the team studied did not conform to this egalitarian model, but was hierarchical with the
CP dominating decision-making on patient management:
I don’t think everybody’s view carries equal weight, multidisciplinary working is very
consultant centred, so I have the final say on treatment and on who I feel requires the team’s
attention. (CP)
This finding was further evidenced by data from the observations, when on two occasions
the CP unilaterally decided that two patients would not be brought into the team meeting,
as he felt that the patients did not need input from the other professionals on the team and
only required changes to their medication maintenance. This phenomenon highlights a
medical bias in treatment orientation on the team which fails to comply with
recommendations in Vision for Change (Department of Health and Children, 2006) by
reducing the opportunity for collaborative bio-psycho-social discussions on patient
European Journal of Social Work
9
assessment and care planning and reducing the range of professional expertise available
to patients.
The hierarchical working arrangements embedded in the structure of the team appear
to be exacerbated by the level of collaboration and coalition which exists between the CP
and the CPN. This phenomenon, outlined by the psychologist, was found to have a
negative impact on the level of professional collaboration amongst the team as a whole
and led to the team effectively being divided into medical and psycho-social halves:
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
The CPN and the Psychiatrist are closely linked, and work through medication … it would
be fair to say that this has a team-splitting effect with the CPN and consultant on one side
and psychology, social work and OT on the other. (Psychologist)
The strength of this coalition, coupled with the hierarchical working arrangements,
impacted the extent to which other professionals felt that they could get involved and thus
reduced the potential for genuine team collaboration. This is highlighted in the data
derived from the interviews with the SW and OT:
It is such a medical and consultant-CPN led team, it can be very difficult to get
involved. (SW)
They have a powerful dynamic together … whenever one of them leaves the room then it
sometimes gives the rest of the group a space to put things out there. (OT)
The dominance of the team by both the CP and the CPN is further evidenced by data
derived from the observations, which showed that between them the consultant and CPN
had 73% of the entire input into patient treatment discussions, with the OT having 12%,
the SW having 10% and the psychologist having 5%. These findings support Shaw et al.
(2007), who found that in general non-medical professionals, such as SWs, psychologists
and OTs, felt that their capacity to collaborate with colleagues and to negotiate alternative
social and psycho-social ways of working was inhibited by medical dominance and
hierarchical working arrangements.
The interview data highlight that though the MDT was found to be formally CP and
informally CPN led by virtue of the CPN’s longevity within the team, the structure of the
team meetings was found to be a fluid process. The mechanics of how the team
functioned were not set in stone each week but fluid depending on who attended the team
meeting, with professionals on occasions not attending the meeting, or attending parts of
it due to the differing levels of priority given to the meeting:
You don’t ever know for sure who will be there each week … one week it was just the
consultant and me, and other weeks it might include us all. (SW)
The team meeting wouldn’t be top priority … if I have a patient appointment I would
prioritise that. (CPN)
The team dynamics depends on the people that are there … If someone leaves the room, they
can change, and offer the team a space to bat something out differently. (OT)
This fluid nature of the team’s dynamics is backed up by the data from the observations
of the team meetings, with the involvement of the psychologist, SW and OT in patient
treatment decisions increasing significantly by 60%, 66% and 67%, respectively, when
the CPN was not at the meeting. This finding concurs with Strauss et al. (1981) and
Scholes and Vaughan (2002) who found that MDTs formed around patients are amongst
10
A. Maddock
the most fluid in organisational structure, with the jurisdictional areas of each profession
requiring constant adjudication and negotiation. The finding also supports Deady (2012)
who highlighted how the working arrangements of such teams are strongly impacted by
the differing professional personalities and by which professionals were present at the
team meeting.
The CP illustrates how the fluid nature of the team can impact treatment provision:
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
It can impact treatment quality, if you want to get everyone’s professional view on a patient
and that professional isn’t there or they go early, it’s a problem. (CP)
It is clear from these findings that the Vision for Change (Department of Health and
Children, 2006) ideal of full weekly bio-psycho-social discussions on patient assessment
and care planning is not being carried out in practice. Practitioners find the structure,
function and practice of the team changing from day-to-day depending upon the
personnel involved, with different disciplines attending team meetings with more
regularity than others, thus impacting the range of expertise available to patients
each week.
Division of labour
The division of labour on this team was found in the interview and observation data to be
in line with Vision for Change (Department of Health and Children, 2006) and Pilgrim
(2009), as being based on professional expertise. When the division of tasks could not be
allocated based on professional expertise, for example, when roles were blurred, the team
member who was deemed to be best acquainted with a patient carried out necessary tasks.
This division of labour strengthened the CPN’s position, who being the first point of
contact with patients through his direct work within the community was found to act as a
gatekeeper, by allowing or restricting other professionals from getting involved in the
patient’s care:
The CPN is a gatekeeper, he may or may not encourage someone to attend psychotherapy,
and because of the patient’s relationship with the CPN this will influence their decision.
(Psychologist)
I think certain professionals protect their roles …. There’s not always communication from
the CPN about issues that have occurred for clients … like if their accommodation is at risk.
It’s difficult to intervene if I don’t know about it. (SW)
Individual personality factors, which were observed during the team meetings, further
strengthened the CPN’s position, specifically the apparent comfort with which the CPN
copes with conflict. There were five strong arguments about patient treatment provision
within the team meetings, all of which were initiated and eventually won by the CPN. An
example, similar to the ones observed within the team meeting, of how the CPN utilised
this type of role protection strategy is offered by the SW in their interview:
Once, I disagreed with a client being sent to a hostel that I felt was completely inappropriate
… So I brought it to the team meeting and the CPN said ‘you need to stop worrying about
this, you’ve got this thing in your head, I don’t know what you’re trying to do’. I was so
floored that I couldn’t say anything. (SW)
European Journal of Social Work
11
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
It is clear from the interview and observation data that the CPN, who is the most
experienced, has consolidated his powerful position in the team by negotiating a strong
working coalition with the CP. Through his greater influence and power, the CPN has
been able to control the division of labour on the team and has been able to maintain a
position of dominance easily by simply blocking the SW who feels marginalised and
alienated. These findings fit neatly with Peck and Norman (1999) and Hannigan and
Allen (2011) who found that when professionals perceive a threat or substitution of their
work by other professions, some so strongly defend their positions, utilising their
personality and experience, that their position becomes virtually impenetrable and this
can lead to reduced collaboration and input from other team members within the team.
Effective collaborative practice
It is clear from the interview and observation data that professionals on this team did not
have the two core competencies of understanding teammates professional roles and
effective team communication which Suter et al. (2009) identified as the two core
competencies for patient-centred collaborative practice.
Lack of communication between the team and clarity on each other’s roles are the two
biggest inhibiting factors in the team’s functioning. (SW)
The interview data highlight how each professional’s understanding of their colleagues’
role was quite superficial and stereotypical, and this certainly appears to be the case in
relation to social work:
I wouldn’t have had too much understanding of the role of a social worker in mental health
… I suppose if there’s a housing problem we talk to the social worker. (Psychologist)
My role is defined by individual team member’s perceptions of what social workers do, and
this can limit the nature of the work referred to me. (SW)
Until recently I didn’t realise the social worker was trained in motivational interviewing. (CP)
Role blurring between the SW and the CPN, and role stereotyping on the team was a
consistent finding in the interview and observational data. This role blurring appears to be
due to the fact that the social work role is not understood on the team, because there is a
lack of communication between the CPN and the SW about their respective roles and the
fact that the CPN, unbeknownst to the team, does not define himself as a traditional CPN,
but as ‘a holistic worker, a mixture of OT, social worker and psychologist’ (CPN). These
findings also support Onyett (2003) and Karben (2011) who found that role blurring and
stereotyping inhibited the potential for professionals, in this case the SW, to offer their
professional skill sets and knowledge to patient cases.
Factors specifically impacting the SW
As already outlined the SW’s expertise on this team was clearly reduced by a lack of
understanding of the social work role in mental health, and by role blurring with the CPN
in an environment where the CPN has negotiated a dominant position as a ‘holistic
worker’ in a team which failed to differentiate between the SW’s and CPN’s skill sets.
The strong impact the discourse of ‘who knows the patient best’ has on the division of
labour within the team, also benefits the CPN—who has direct access to patients in the
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
12
A. Maddock
community and is the longest serving member of the team—and further reduces the social
work contribution. These factors led to the CPN carrying out what are generally
perceived as social work tasks. An example of this can be seen in how during two of the
observations the CPN took over the role of assessing suitable post-discharge accommodation within the community for two patients, traditionally a social work task due to
their expertise in systemic psycho-social assessment. This reduced the quality of the
provision offered to the patient, and meant that the team failed to comply with Vision for
Change (Department of Health and Children, 2006), as the expert in the field in this case
the SW did not carry out these interventions.
The interview data highlight how the multidisciplinary mental health team did not
have formally agreed role or job descriptions. Instead, in line with Scholes and Vaughan
(2002), professionals such as the psychologist and OT created their own place and
maintained their professional persona within the team through a process of negotiation:
I’ve taken responsibility to consistently negotiate, create my role and give people the
language of OT within the team. (OT)
I think it’s up to each discipline to stake their claim, by interjecting and presenting their
thinking. (Psychologist)
The interview data highlight how the SW, however, was found to be less inclined to
negotiate, supporting Peck and Norman (1999) and Hannigan and Allen (2011), by
arguing for a system of professional demarcation in an attempt to bring clarity to the team
and to avoid overlapping of roles.
No I haven’t negotiated my role. I’ve never formally said ‘this is what I do’. Negotiating my
role is not something I have professional experience of or was taught in college … I’d rather
that the CPN, consultant [as mediator] and I sit down formally and discussed our separate
roles … rather than try to find a negotiated compromise. (SW)
The reluctance of the SW to negotiate in a more sustained and consistent way, much like
the OT has outlined, is likely to lead to social work continuing to be marginalised within
the team. This reluctance to negotiate could be explained by Specht (1985), Diggins
(2004), Hall (2005) and the Mental Health Commission (2010) who illustrate how
communication skills that are taught to social work students in Ireland usually focus on
interactions with clients and their families from the perspective of their profession, with
very little focus on interprofessional communication and role negotiation.
The SW highlights the need for IPE for SWs in professional training in Ireland:
I think interprofessional education and skills training for social workers would be brilliant. In
college child protection is prioritised, just working with other social workers. Whereas here, I
share an office and have to communicate and collaborate with an OT, psychologist, CPN and
consultant, it’s definitely not something that college prepares you for. (SW)
This finding supports the Mental Health Commission (2010) who identified how
professional students in Ireland traditionally have little formal contact with one another
during their education experience, and experience very little planned collaborative
learning to promote teamwork, and enter practice without sufficient training in
interprofessional care and coordination. Due to these factors the SW on this team appears
to have begun their career with a lack of competency in role negotiation, and like the rest
European Journal of Social Work
13
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
of the team in team communication and understanding of the team’s professional roles,
identified by Suter et al. (2009) as two competencies required for collaborative practice.
Conclusion
In summary, this study has addressed its own aims by exploring several key aspects of
mental health multidisciplinary teamworking in a single team in Ireland. The analysis
revealed several themes which demonstrate the complexity of multidisciplinary
teamworking, along with potential barriers to the effectiveness of this type of service
provision and to social work’s input on such teams in Ireland. The study was carried out
against an Irish policy background where it has been consistently recommended that
mental illness should be conceptualised in an integrative way, through the use of a biopsycho-social model of mental illness within mental health MDTs, reflecting the varying
dimensions of the phenomenon. Multidisciplinary teamworking has been lauded and
recommended as the ideal form of mental health service delivery, achieved within an
egalitarian working environment, where patients’ needs are met through enhanced
professional collaboration and the utilisation of a variety of professional skills and
knowledge bases. However, the empirical research reviewed for this research project
generally has revealed a much different reality. This study confirmed what the
sociological literature has consistently suggested that mental health practice is a contested
area of human activity rather than an area characterised by scientific or ideological
consensus, with each team member on this team found to subscribe to and advocate for a
different model of mental illness based on different educational and professional
socialisation experiences in an environment where the medical model was dominant
over psychological, social and psycho-social perspectives. Team members were found to
be lacking in the core competencies for patient-centred collaborative practice, which
include understanding each other’s roles and communicating effectively, and differed
fundamentally on each other’s perceived professional role boundaries and on how cases
should be distributed, as well as on modes of mental health treatment and management.
The power dynamics and working arrangements on the team were found to be fluid based
on who was at the team meeting, which varied from week to week. Professional rivalry,
hierarchical working arrangements, a professional coalition between the CPN and the CP,
team member non-participation, role protectionism, professional gatekeeping, role
blurring and stereotyping on this team ensured that the organisational order within which
this team organised and delivered mental health services can at best can be described as
fragmented, with the potential for genuine collaboration between professionals on the
team reduced due to these factors. The barriers to effective mental health multidisciplinary teamworking identified in the research literature, and further evidenced by
this study, are strongly influenced by the lack of opportunities for mental health
professionals to learn and work together in meaningful ways as part of their professional
training in Ireland (Mental Health Commission, 2010). It is clear that in order to improve
interprofessional practice and care delivery that these issues must be addressed through
increased opportunities for mental health MDT professionals to be involved in IPE and
interactive collaborative learning environments, in which team members can learn with
and from each other, and develop the core competencies and skills required for patientcentred collaborative practice (Barr, 2005).
In a practice environment where there are no clear job descriptions, the SW on this team
had to contend with an additional interprofessional barrier to collaborative practice—not
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
14
A. Maddock
encountered by other team members—namely, a lack of interprofessional role negotiation
skills. This additional barrier, which has been a historical issue for Irish mental health
SWs (Butler, 2005), appeared to further limit the extent to which the SW on this team
could engage in theoretical discussions on patient assessment and treatment and
contribute their skill set to the team. This skill deficiency in interprofessional role
negotiation skills (Diggins, 2004) along with the lack of the core competencies for
patient-centred collaborative practice (Suter et al., 2009) exhibited by the SW on this
team have been identified in the research literature as barriers to social work effectiveness
within MDTs. The existence of these barriers is clearly influenced by the fact that social
work in Ireland has become preoccupied by social work specialisms which are largely
dominated by statutory regulation, such as child protection and probation (Butler, 2005).
This has been reflected in the priorities of social work educators, with limited mental
health social work education and skills training and no IPE in the areas of understanding
interprofessional roles, team communication and interprofessional role negotiation
currently available to Irish social work students (Mental Health Commission, 2010). It
is clear from the research literature, which is further evidenced by this study, that in order
for Irish SWs in mental health MDTs to be effective in their collaborative practice, they
must be offered the opportunity to develop the competencies and skills required for
effective interprofessional collaborative practice. This can be achieved through SWs
being allowed increased access to IPE and mental health social work education and skills
training at university and practice levels (Mental Health Commission, 2010).
Notes on contributor
Alan Maddock is a recent graduate with distinction (2012) from the Masters of Social
Work in Trinity College, Dublin and is a registered member of the Irish Social Work
regulatory board CORU.
References
Armstrong, C., de Burca, S., Flood, P., & MacCurtain, S. (2007). Community mental health teams:
Determinants of effectiveness (Working Paper). Limerick: University of Limerick.
Bailey, D. (2012). Interdisciplinary working in mental health. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barr, H. (2005). Interprofessional education: Today, yesterday and tomorrow. London: Centre for
Health Sciences and Practice.
Berg, B. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Biggerstaff, D., & Thompson, A. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) as a
method of choice for research in health care settings. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5,
173–183. doi:10.1080/14780880802314304
Blomqvist, S., & Engstrom, I. (2012). Interprofessional psychiatric teams: Is multidimensionality
evident in treatment conferences? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26, 289–296. doi:10.3109/
13561820.2012.676108
Butler, S. (2005). Mental health social work in Ireland: Missed opportunities. In N. Kearney & C.
Skehill (Eds.), Social work in Ireland: Historical perspectives (pp. 33–50). Dublin: Institute of
Public Administration.
Byrne, M., & Onyett, S. (2010). Teamwork within mental health services in Ireland: Resource
paper. Dublin: Mental Health Commission.
Colombo, A., Bendelow, G., Fulford, B., & Williams, S. (2003). Evaluating the influence of implicit
models of mental disorder on processes of shared decision making within community-based
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
European Journal of Social Work
15
multi-disciplinary teams. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 1557–1570. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536
(02)00156-9
Deady, R. (2012). Studying multidisciplinary teams in the Irish Republic: The conceptual wrangle.
Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 48, 176–182. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6163.2011.00326.x
Department of Health. (1966). Commission of inquiry on mental illness. Dublin: Stationery Office.
Department of Health. (1984). The psychiatric services: Planning for the future. Dublin: Stationery
Office.
Department of Health and Children. (2006). A Vision for Change. Report of the expert group on
mental health policy. Dublin: Stationery Office.
Diggins, M. (2004). Teaching and learning communication skills in social work education. London:
Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Donnison, J., Thompson, A. R., & Turpin, G. (2009). A qualitative exploration of communication
within the community mental health team. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 18,
310–317. doi:10.1111/j.1447-0349.2009.00620.x
Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Grinnell, R., & Unrau, Y. (2011). Social work research and evaluation – Foundations of evidencebased practice (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, P. (2005). Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 19, 188–196. doi:10.1080/13561820500081745
Hannigan, B., & Allen, D. (2011). Giving a fig about roles: Policy, context and work in community
mental health care. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 18, 1–8. doi:10.1111/
j.1365-2850.2010.01631.x
Herron, S., & Mortimer, R. (1999). Mental health: A contested concept. Journal of Public Mental
Health, 1, 4–8. doi:10.1108/17465729199900002
Karben, K. (2011). Social work and mental health. London: Polity.
Kirk, S. (2005). Mental disorders in the social environment. New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
Knapp, M., McDaid, D., Mossialos, E., & Thornicroft, G. (2007). Mental health policy and practice
across Europe: An overview. In M. Knapp, D. McDaid, E. Mossialos, & G. Thornicroft (Eds.),
Mental health policy and practice across Europe: The future direction of mental health care
(pp. 1–14). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Krysik, J., & Finn, J. (2010). Research for effective social work practice (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Mental Health Commission. (2006). Multidisciplinary working: From theory to practice. Dublin:
Author.
Mental Health Commission. (2010). Current education/training available for professionals working
in mental health services in the republic of Ireland – A scoping study. Dublin: Author.
Molyneux, J. (2001). Interprofessional teamworking: What makes teams work well? Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 15, 29–35. doi:10.1080/13561820020022855
Onyett, S. (2003). Teamworking in mental health. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Peck, E., & Norman, I. (1999). Working together in adult community mental health services:
Exploring inter-professional role relations. Journal of Mental Health, 8, 231–243. doi:10.1080/
09638239917391
Pecukonis, E., Doyle, O., & Bliss, S. (2008). Reducing barriers to interprofessional training:
Promoting interprofessional cultural competence. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 22, 417–428.
doi:10.1080/13561820802190442
Pilgrim, D. (2009). Key concepts in mental health (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Pollard, K. (2010). The medicalisation thesis. In K. Pollard, J. Thomas, & M. Miers (Eds.),
Understanding interprofessional working in health and social care (pp. 121–137). London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Reeves, S., Lewin, S., Espin, S., & Zwarenstein, M. (2010). Interprofessional teamwork for health
and social care. Chichester: Blackwell.
Rogers, A., & Pilgrim, D. (2005). A sociology of mental health and illness (3rd ed.). Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Scholes, J., & Vaughan, B. (2002). Cross-boundary working: Implications for the multiprofessional
team. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 11, 399–408. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2702.2002.00634.x
16
A. Maddock
Downloaded by [${individualUser.displayName}] at 03:06 18 February 2014
Shaw, M., Heyman, B., Reynolds, L., Davies, J., & Godin, P. (2007). Multidisciplinary teamwork in
a UK regional secure mental health unit a matter for negotiation? Social Theory and Health, 5,
356–377. doi:10.1057/palgrave.sth.8700103
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis.
London: Sage.
Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenon – logical analysis. In J. A. Smith
(Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 53–80). London: Sage.
Specht, H. (1985). Managing professional interpersonal interactions. Social Work, 30, 225–230.
Strauss, A., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., Ehrlich, D., & Sabshin M. (1981). Psychiatric ideologies
and institutions (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Suter, E., Arndt, J., Arthur, N., Parboosingh, J., Taylor, E., & Deutschlander, S. (2009). Role
understanding and effective communication as core competencies for collaborative practice.
Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23, 41–51. doi:10.1080/13561820802338579