Skip to main content
Download PDF

Interprofessional collaboration during multidisciplinary team meetings in geriatric rehabilitation: an observational study

BMC Geriatrics volume 25, Article number: 213 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC), which involves healthcare professionals from different professions collaborating with patients and informal caregivers, is essential for the provision of high-quality person-centred geriatric rehabilitation. Person-centred geriatric rehabilitation involves addressing each patient’s unique needs throughout geriatric rehabilitation and multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs), where patients’ condition, goals, and treatment are discussed and evaluated; IPC is essential. However, there is a lack of knowledge about essential factors that influence IPC during MDTMs in geriatric rehabilitation. This study examined the factors affecting IPC during MDTMs, including the participants’ perceptions of IPC during the MDTM and the patient outcome measures used.

Methods

The research is a naturalistic observation study performed during 7 MDTMs with 41 participants from four geriatric rehabilitation facilities situated in nursing homes in the Netherlands. After the MDTM, participants completed a brief survey that included a VAS to determine their IPC experiences. They used the VAS to score their satisfaction with collaboration, MDTM conditions, and communication.

Results

Chair roles, time management, clear procedures, and actively participating healthcare professionals who share information and ask clarifying questions are all necessary for effective IPC during MDTMs. Involving patients and informal caregivers is also essential. Participants’ VAS scores were 7.9 (mean), 8.0 (median), and [7.3–8.9] IQR for collaboration, 7.8, 8.0, and [7.1–8.5] for sharing knowledge, and 6.6, 6.6, and [5.8-8.0] for MDTM conditions. Nonetheless, they identified areas for improvement, such as increasing interdependence. Occasionally, patient outcome measures were used.

Conclusion

Effective leadership and communication among the participants enhances IPC during MDTM. Being inactive and adopting a wait-and-see strategy during the MDTM hampers IPC and thereby potentially hinders optimal person-centred care. To establish effective MDTMs for high-quality person-centred geriatric rehabilitation, participants must be involved, accept responsibility, and collaborate with the chair.

Trial registration

Not applicable.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

To maintain high-quality geriatric rehabilitation and to anticipate changing circumstances in the rehabilitation process over time, such as changing goals, interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is essential [1,2,3,4]. IPC is defined as healthcare professionals from different professional backgrounds working collaboratively with patients and their informal caregivers. Everyone contributes unique knowledge and experience to achieve a shared goal [5, 6]. In the context of geriatric rehabilitation, IPC frequently takes place during and is essential for effective multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) [4, 7].

MDTMs in geriatric rehabilitation involve discussion and evaluation of patients’ condition, goals, and treatment to determine the next phase of rehabilitation [8,9,10]. Coordinating each patient’s individual needs during geriatric rehabilitation and MDTMs is an essential element of person-centred geriatric rehabilitation [2, 4]. To make the care person-centred, the input of the patient and their informal caregiver is essential. During the rehabilitation process, a variety of healthcare professionals provide diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in a relatively short time span [2]. All parties have to work together to enable the patient’s safe and timely return home or, if necessary, transfer to a long-term care facility [2, 11]. In order to collaboratively provide person-centred care tailored to the patient’s needs and wishes and to achieve mutual understanding of patients’ problems and goals, MDTMs require adequate IPC [4].

Previous research on IPC has shown that effective communication, patient and informal caregiver involvement, as well as clear, coordinated procedures, processes, and shared goals are all required [4, 6,7,8,9, 12,13,14]. Furthermore, it has also been suggested that the use of patient outcome measures is beneficial for exchanging information, discussing patients’ health status, and evaluating rehabilitation, allowing for a more comparable evaluation of patients’ functional status [4, 15]. In addition, meetings involving more than two persons, such as MDTMs, have been shown to be essential platforms for organisational communication, knowledge, and culture [16]. To date, most studies on this topic have been conducted in settings outside of geriatric rehabilitation, such as hospitals or long-term care facilities. Currently, there is a lack of knowledge about the essential factors and processes that influence IPC in geriatric rehabilitation, especially during MDTMs. To optimise IPC and thereby improve person-centred care, more knowledge is needed regarding the facilitators of and barriers to IPC during MDTMs in geriatric rehabilitation.

The current observational study of essential factors and processes influencing IPC during MDTMs in geriatric rehabilitation provides a better understanding of the topic and allows us to enhance IPC for better person-centred geriatric rehabilitation. This study examines IPC during MDTMs in geriatric rehabilitation by (1) describing observed aspects of IPC in a naturalistic setting, (2) examining the participants’ satisfaction with aspects of IPC, and (3) describing the use of standardised patient outcome measures.

Methods

The study was designed as a naturalistic observation study, that is, a study in which a passive observer observes phenomena in their natural, non-manipulated environment [17, 18]. This method enables researchers to observe IPC during MDTMs in everyday situations, ensuring high ecological validity [18]. Using the fly-on-the-wall approach, a researcher observed the MDTM. Participants in the MDTM were asked to complete a short questionnaire after the MDTM to assess their subjective experience of IPC during the meeting. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research were used to report this study [19]. The study was deemed exempt from the Medical Research involving Human Subjects Act by the Medical Ethics Committee Leiden - The Hague - Delft (METC LDD) [N22.027], hereby adhering to the Declaration of Helsinki. Participating teams received a box of chocolates for their participation. Data were collected between May and December 2022.

Setting

The study was performed in seven MDTMs from four geriatric rehabilitation facilities in the Netherlands. These geriatric rehabilitation facilities are generally situated in nursing homes and provide care to older people with complex diseases and disabilities after an acute event [2, 20]. Due to their temporary inability to stay at home, geriatric rehabilitation patients receive 24/7 care from a multidisciplinary team that includes the specialist physician in nursing homes, psychologists, nurses, nurse aides, speech therapists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, spiritual counsellors, social workers, activity coordinators, and healthcare intermediary. The specialist physician in nursing homes is an officially recognised medical discipline [21]. These physicians have completed a two year specialist training programme to become a qualified nursing home physician [22]. Patients receive rehabilitation and care based on a care plan to improve their functional abilities, advance activity, maintain functional reserve, and enhance social involvement [2]. The specialist physician in nursing homes is responsible for the care plan [21].

Participants

Using purposive sampling, scientific research committees of geriatric rehabilitation facilities (n = 12) received an information package about the study and were invited to participate. Reasons not to participate were a lack of time to organise observations by approached departments (n = 2), and not responding to the invitations (n = 3). After they agreed to participate, the researcher contacted the managers of the geriatric rehabilitation departments (n = 7) via mail and phone. The managers received information regarding the study and they informed their teams. If the team decided to participate, they received an informed consent form. The study included all persons participating in the observed MDTMs at the geriatric rehabilitation departments, with no additional inclusion or exclusion criteria.

Data collection

Observations

Two researchers (AD, HS) developed an observation guide and form to instruct observers on what to observe, how to document their observations, and how to inform participants at the beginning of the observed MTDM. The observation form was created based on the themes (i.e., team performance, organisational conditions, and information sharing) identified in a systematic review of facilitators of and barriers to IPC in long-term care and geriatric rehabilitation [7]. Two researchers (AD, HS) pilot tested the observation form by independently observing two MDTMs, followed by a consensus meeting to compare observations and to optimise the form.

The form contained five topics: (1) Team composition: The observer records who and how many members attended the MDTM, as well as their professional and additional roles, such as chairing or taking minutes. Furthermore, they recorded the number of patients discussed, took notes on agenda management, and noted when team members were replaced by colleagues; (2) Team performance: The researcher observes the clarity of team responsibilities, such as recognising roles and expertise; team goals, such as mutual objectives and the setting of priorities; the conduct and attitudes of participants, such as being respectful and whether everyone is given the opportunity to provide input; and interaction between participants, for example, discussing items with the whole group or in a subgroup, or looking at laptops instead of each other while discussing patients; (3) Organisational conditions: This includes observing the visible procedures that were followed, such as clear and coordinated procedures; available resources, such as sufficient time for the meeting and available operational technical facilities; and clarity of leadership, such as leadership style and clear vision; (4) Information sharing: Observation includes descriptions of the participants’ behaviour during the MDTM, such as body language and intonation; how participants interact, for example, whether all participants are involved; active sharing of information and expertise (e.g., sharing of additional patient information, such as the psychologist sharing the results of a recent neuropsychological test); and (5) The use of patient outcome measures: The researcher documents whether and which patient outcome measures were discussed during the MDTM.

Based on previous studies, the researcher then rated the observed level of team performance, organisational conditions, and information sharing in the MDTM using a Visual Analogue Score (VAS) [4, 7]. VAS is a line (0-100 mm) where 0 is ‘not observed at all’ and 10 is ‘very clearly observed’. Finally, the researcher made additional field notes in the text fields below each IPC-aspect. The observation form can be found in Supplement 1.

Participants’ experience of IPC

To evaluate participants’ subjective experience of IPC during MDTMs, the researchers developed a brief questionnaire. First, participants were asked to provide demographic information, such as their professional position. Second, participants used a VAS to rate their satisfaction on the following items: (1) How satisfied are you with the collaboration in the MDTM?, (2) How satisfied are you with the communication in the MDTM? and (3) How satisfied are you with the essential conditions of the MDTM? (e.g., time, meeting room, technical facilities, structure of the MDTM). The VAS ranges from ‘very dissatisfied’ (0) to ‘very satisfied’ (10). Third, participants could elaborate on their ratings of the IPC components during the MDTM by writing down additional comments in an open text field. The short questionnaire can be found in Supplement 2.

Procedures

At the beginning of the MDTM the researcher introduced themselves and briefly explained the goal of the observation and the World Health Organisation’s definition of IPC to the participants. Participants were asked to continue with the MDTM as if the researcher was not present. The researcher was ‘a fly-on-the-wall’, so they took a position in the room where they could observe what was happening without attracting too much attention. The MDTMs were audio recorded. Three researchers (AD, HS, MC) carried out the observations. Observers were not affiliated with the teams they observed. To ensure data quality, four of the seven MDTMs were observed independently by two researchers, followed by a consensus meeting. The consensus forms were then used in the analyses. To ensure data accuracy, two researchers (AD, MC) checked the observation forms against the audio recordings of the MDTMs to ensure that no relevant information was missed. Audio recordings were deleted after the check.

Data analysis

A sample size of five to ten observations was predetermined. Data collection could be stopped if no new information about IPC in MDTMs emerged [18]. Two researchers (AD, MC) independently coded observation forms using both inductive and deductive coding. Three researchers (AD, MC, HS) created a codebook with four pre-developed topics based on a review examining IPC in long-term care and geriatric rehabilitation [7]. The topics included: (A) Team performance: including defined roles and goals, attitudes towards each other, interaction between team members, and performance across roles); (B) Organisational conditions: including procedures, resources (such as technical facilities, time to prepare and attend meetings), and leadership (for example, what kind of leadership); (C) Information sharing: communication between participants (e.g., listening to each other and using a common language), involvement of participants (such as an active exchange of information and knowledge between participants); (D) Patient outcome measures: their impact on IPC in MDTMs. The codebook can be found in Supplement 3. Any additional topics and codes that emerged during the coding process were added to the codebook.

The researchers (AD and HS) conducted a qualitative content analysis to gain insight into MDTMs in geriatric rehabilitation and to better understand IPC in order to enhance person-centred care [18, 23]. During the analysis, the researchers immersed themselves in the data, allowing themes to emerge from the data. By refining and developing the codebook categories and integrating them with field notes from both participants and researchers, they were able to combine findings and interpretations. Atlas.ti version 22 facilitated the ordering and structuring of the data. Descriptive analyses were carried out using SPSS version 29 to present the participants’ demographics and perspectives on IPC.

Results

The researchers observed seven MDTMs from seven departments in four geriatric rehabilitation facilities. A total of 41 participants took part in the MDTMs: 39 healthcare professionals, one patient, and one informal caregiver (M = 7.0 per MDTM, range 2.5–11.0). Table 1 shows the characteristics of the participants.

Table 1 Demographics of the participants in the observed multidisciplinary team meetings (N = 7) in geriatric rehabilitation
Full size table

Organisation of MDTMs

During the seven MDTMs, 70 patients were discussed. The agendas included 65 patients (M = 9.3 per MDTM, range 1 to 19). In addition, one discharged patient was discussed, and during three MDTMs, a total of four patients were added to the agenda. Seven MDTMs required a total of 356 min to discuss and evaluate the patients (M = 5.1 min per patient). All MDTMs were chaired by a designated chairperson. This was usually the specialist physician in nursing homes or the nurse practitioner who also took notes; only three MDTMs had a designated note taker. Interestingly, there was only one MTDM during which a patient was present and one MDTM which was joined by an informal caregiver.

Observed IPC-influencing factors during MDTMs

Team performance

A distinctive aspect was the clarity of team roles. This included not only professional roles but also tasks such as chairing, maintaining an agenda, and reporting on team objectives. The role of the chair was clear in all MDTMs. Each of the seven MDTMs was chaired by an specialist physician in nursing homes or nurse practitioner. In two meetings the role of chair was shared between two individuals: one person focused on the content while the other focused on the rehabilitation process. The clear role of the chair resulted in well-coordinated meetings, which included working with clear objectives, a well-prepared agenda, and the involvement of persons relevant to the patients’ rehabilitation.

During one MDTM, due to illness of team members, one person had to combine several roles, e.g., the role of physician combined with the role of chair, note taker, and agenda manager. This resulted in insufficient time to discuss all the issues on the agenda within the time allotted for the MDTM, and required a high level of skill from the MDTM leader.

Active participation of all participants in the MDTMs had a notable facilitating influence on IPC. When participants actively responded to each other’s perceptions, the team was able to establish common goals. This implies effective team performance.

However, participants were regularly distracted, which resulted in decreased focus. This was especially due to the use of phones, which frequently led to subgroup discussions or the stagnation of an MDTM.

Organisational conditions

Resources for conducting MDTMs were identified within the organisational conditions. It was evident that sufficient time to meet each other and conduct MDTMs was essential to manage the number of patients on the agenda.

However, due to time constraints and the large number of cases on the agenda, patients were often discussed less thoroughly. For example, the longest MDTM lasted 82.5 min and addressed 18 patients, an average of 4.6 min per patient.

Reduced team concentration and participation, partly caused by the length of MDTMs, occasionally resulted in ambiguous follow-up agreements. Following specific procedures, such as setting an agenda, planning, and scheduling tasks, enhanced IPC during MDTMs. However, discrepancies or the lack of procedures reduced IPC. Reduced concentration was also observed when climate control was lacking or suboptimal. MDTMs were occasionally conducted in small rooms without climate control.

Furthermore, the possibility of sharing information on a large screen while discussing patient issues and the rehabilitation process with all participants enhanced participant engagement and IPC during MDTMs.

Information sharing

A variety of topics under the heading of Information sharing influenced IPC during MDTMs. For example, communication between participants was highlighted as a critical component. The active exchange of information about patient issues and rehabilitation processes stimulated group discussions, which enhanced IPC. However, a lack of information sharing made it unclear who did what during the rehabilitation, which hindered IPC during the MDTM.

Listening was an important aspect that was observed repeatedly during MDTMs. During MDTMs, IPC increased when participants asked clarifying questions to gain a deeper understanding of unclear or incomplete information. Finally, when patients and informal caregivers’ were involved during MDTMs - or when they were explicitly represented by a team member who collected information from them prior to the MDTM - IPC was enhanced by the identification of well-defined, person-centred shared goals.

Patient outcome measures

Four of the seven MDTMs included patient outcome measures. During these four MDTMs, 53 of the 70 patients were discussed. However, only five patients were discussed using four different measures. Three measures of a patient’s cognition were observed: the Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Delirium Observation Screening Scale. In addition, the Barthel Index for Activities of Daily Living was observed during one MDTM. In conclusion, the use of patient outcome measures during MDTMs appears to be incidental rather than methodical.

Figure 1 shows facilitators of and barriers to interprofessional collaboration in multidisciplinary team meetings in geriatric rehabilitation.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Observed facilitators of and barriers to interprofessional collaboration in multidisciplinary team meetings in geriatric rehabilitation

Full size image

Observers’ rating on the visibility of IPC during MDTMs

Supplement 4 shows the researchers’ VAS scores for each observed IPC component across all seven MDTMs. A mean score of 7.1 with a median of 7.7 on team performance (interquartile range [IQR] 6.0-8.2), a mean of 7.7 score (median = 7.9, IQR 7.1–8.1) on organisational conditions, and a mean score of 7.1 (median = 6.9, IQR 6.1–8.1) on information sharing.

Participants’ perceptions of IPC during MDTMs

Supplement 5 summarises participant satisfaction with IPC during MDTMs. It is divided into three categories: (a) collaboration, (b) MDTM conditions, and (c) communication.

Satisfaction with collaboration

Participants’ mean subjective rating of collaboration was 7.9 with a median of 8.0 (IQR 7.3–8.9). Although the overall score was good, participants identified areas for improvement in IPC during MDTMs:

“Everyone is still focused on doing their own thing, we need a more transdisciplinary focus.” Therapist - MDTM 36706.

“The usual participants were not present, which made things go less smoothly than normal. There were many extra tasks due to colleagues being off sick.” Physician - MDTM 36704.

Participants and observers had comparable scores on collaboration, with the MDTM participants scoring somewhat higher.

Satisfaction with MDTM conditions

Satisfaction with MDTM conditions differed among the observed MDTMs. MDTM conditions are scored with a mean of 6.6 (median = 6.6, IQR 5.8-8.0). During two MDTMs, it was noticeable that the physicians (the specialist physician in nursing homes) and nurses (nurse practitioners) were the least satisfied with the available resources. They mentioned the lack of videoconferencing possibilities and climate control for the meeting room:

Dialing in affects the quality of the meeting; it would be good to have video conferences.” Physician - MDTM36701.

“The MDTM room is not always ideal; this one, for example, it’s too small and too hot.” Physician - MDTM 36705.

Another factor acknowledged by participants was the lack of time to prepare for meetings. Some participants noted that team members’ attempts to prepare for MDTMs often failed. However, some participants mentioned noticeable improvements:

“Over the past few months, the MDTM has become more structured, so. Things are running better and it is a pleasure to work with this team.”

Therapist - MDTM 36707.

Compared to collaboration, participants rated MDTM conditions lower than observers.

Satisfaction with communication

Participants were satisfied with the communication with an average score of 7.8 (median = 8.0, IQR 7.1–8.5). However, they identified areas for improvement, such as clear communication about different tasks and agreement on common goals. Similar to collaboration, observers’ ratings are slightly lower than those of MDTM participants.

Discussion

In geriatric rehabilitation and during MDTMs, IPC is essential as it enables effective collaboration between healthcare professionals from various disciplines, patients, and informal caregivers towards shared goals addressing patients’ unique needs and wishes to facilitate person-centred geriatric rehabilitation [8, 24,25,26,27,28,29]. This study examined interprofessional collaboration during MDTMs in geriatric rehabilitation and how these MDTMs are organised. Effective MDTMs require a designated chair, clear team roles, involvement of all parties, effective procedures, and communication to ensure coordination.

In line with previous studies, this research shows that IPC in MDTMs improves when the meeting is led by a designated person with leadership skills, such as the ability to organise and build strong team relationships [9, 30, 31]. Moreover, a chair is also accountable for coordinating and adhering to established procedures and enhancing participant involvement by encouraging discussion and contributions during MDTMs and monitoring person-centred goal setting [8, 24,25,26,27,28]. Coordinating procedures and involving a variety of complementary participants (healthcare professionals, patients, and informal caregivers) enhances the shift from interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, or monodisciplinary objectives to common interprofessional goals [4, 7, 31]. Assigning a designated chair is therefore essential for IPC in MDTMs in geriatric rehabilitation.

All these tasks together require a higher level of skills from a chair. Therefore, during MDTMs, a chair should not be asked to perform any additional tasks outside their professional role. Team members can enhance their MDTMs by taking on complementary championship roles, such as co-chairing MDTMs and committing to improving IPC [32]. Having distinct complementary team roles and effective interaction improves IPC during MDTMs. In line with person-centred care, future research should examine the most effective ways to provide these complimentary team responsibilities in MDTMs.

Collaboration enhances person-centred rehabilitation by enabling shared decision-making [29, 33,34,35]. For true and efficient IPC during MDTMs, the active involvement of patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals is essential. However, their involvement in MDTMs in geriatric rehabilitation is inadequate. As indicated in previous studies and diverse settings, they experience ‘person-centred moments’, but only few experience ‘person-centred care’ [36, 37]. Yet the involvement of patients and informal caregivers in all aspects of care delivery and design is essential for IPC to establish high-performing person-centred teams with common objectives, as shown in previous studies [31]. To facilitate patient and informal caregiver involvement during MDTMs, it is important to utilise well-coordinated procedures in which active information sharing and open empathetic communication based on trust are essential factors [7, 31, 38, 39]. If it is not possible for patients or informal caregivers to participate during MDTMs, a chairperson must ensure that their perspectives are represented. Having procedures for the chair to obtain information ahead of time, or to delegate this to another healthcare professional, and to inform the patient and informal caregiver afterwards, allows for patient and informal caregiver involvement [8, 12, 26]. Further research will enhance IPC even more by examining the most effective ways to involve patients and informal caregivers in MDTMs while providing person-centred rehabilitation. Besides, future studies should examine the impact of the presence of patients and informal caregivers on the proceedings of the MDTM and satisfaction with the care.

Organisational conditions influence how procedures are carried out [4, 40]. Support for clearly defined procedures for MDTMs, facilitated at the organisational level, will encourage and enable participants to complete necessary preparations prior to the meeting. This increases involvement and active information sharing to improve IPC during MDTMs [4, 9]. Adequate resources, as well as minimal distraction from external sources during MDTMs, improve IPC by enhancing mutual attention [41,42,43]. Future research at the organisational level, through investigating the minimum resources and procedures required by MDTMs to provide person-centred rehabilitation, could help geriatric rehabilitation facilities and enhance IPC.

In conclusion, this study showed that patient outcome measures were not much used during MDTMs; however, literature suggests that their application will result in a consistent and comprehensive perspective of patients’ conditions, improved common language and, consequently, IPC [7, 15]. IPC and working with shared goals in MDTMs will enhance the quality of person-centred geriatric rehabilitation by consequently using measures regarding activities of daily living due to their various domains (e.g., mobility, communication, cognition, self-care, and behaviour), which enhances the involvement of a variety of expert healthcare professionals, patients, and informal caregivers [44, 45]. To understand why patient outcome measures are so rarely used, future research should examine the barriers to using patient outcome measures in MDTMs in geriatric rehabilitation in order to better understand why they are utilised so rarely. Besides, conducting studies that measure the clinical impact of MDTMs will further support the need for using outcome measures in MDTMs.

Strength and limitations

The strengths of this study include the naturalistic observation method, which enables a passive observer to observe events in their natural, non-manipulated setting. The use of an observation form provided the observer with information about which factors to observe, thereby structuring the observation. Conducting multiple observations with two observers, followed by a consensus meeting, allowed for thoroughness. In addition, the researchers were able to identify the observed participants’ perceptions of IPC by having them complete brief questionnaires.

Although the observer was not actively involved, being in the same room as the participants’ during the MDTMs may have influenced their behaviour. Therefore, having a passive observer present can be both a strength and a limitation. The observations were conducted in a variety of Dutch geriatric rehabilitation in nursing homes, which may differ from MDTM circumstances in other settings (e.g. hospital). In the future, it would be desirable to take inspiration from our work and expand it to other European nations. Nonetheless, the observed factors influencing IPC during MDTMs may provide useful recommendations for improving IPC during MDTMs in different settings and countries. Another limitation was the small number of patients and family caregivers who were present during the MDTMs. Unfortunately, this is in line with clinical practice, as family and patient involvement during MDTMs is not common practice. Future studies should examine the impact of the presence of patients and informal caregivers on the proceedings of the MDTM and satisfaction with the care.

Conclusions and implications

IPC has been demonstrated to be essential for MDTMs in geriatric rehabilitation. IPC is necessary to enable achieving common goals, to evaluate, and establish a shared plan for person-centred geriatric rehabilitation. In order to achieve person-centred goals in geriatric rehabilitation, patients, healthcare professionals, and informal caregivers must collaborate [4, 7]. IPC during MDTMs will benefit from chairpersons with excellent leadership abilities who are able to interact with every individual involved [9, 30, 31]. IPC improves when all persons involved who attend MDTMs are prepared and communicate emphatically using common language, for example by using patient outcome measures, and listening to each other [6, 8, 30]. When all of these influencing factors are supported at the organisational level, IPC improves during MDTMs [7, 30]. However, when all parties adopt a wait-and-see strategy, collaboration declines, barriers to IPC persist, and person-centred rehabilitation is hindered. Team members and their leaders need to understand how MDTMs are conducted and what factors need to be adjusted in order to achieve improvement. To increase the effectiveness of MDTMs, participants must actively participate, accept responsibility for their actions, communicate with each other, and engage, for example by asking MDTM members, including the chairperson, clarifying questions. It implies a collaborative culture that places less emphasis on performance and individualism, resulting in improved IPC during MDTMs and enabling high-quality person-centred geriatric rehabilitation.

Data availability

The dataset is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

IPC:

Interprofessional collaboration

MDTM:

Multidisciplinary team meeting

METC LDD:

Medical research ethics committee leiden den haag delft

VAS:

Visual analogue score

IQR:

Interquartile range

References

  1. Geriatrics Society A. Guiding principles for the care of older adults with Multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians: American geriatrics society expert panel on the care of older adults with Multimorbidity. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(10):E1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Grund S, Gordon AL, van Balen R et al. European consensus on core principles and future priorities for geriatric rehabilitation: consensus statement. Eur Geriatr Med. 2020(11):233–8.

  3. Yarnall AJ, Sayer AA, Clegg A, Rockwood K, Parker S, Hindle JV. New horizons in Multimorbidity in older adults. Age Ageing. 2017;46(6):882–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Doornebosch AJ, Achterberg WP, Smaling HJA. Factors influencing interprofessional collaboration in general and during multidisciplinary team meetings in long-term care and geriatric rehabilitation: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):285.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. WorldHealthOrganisation. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education & Collaborative Practice. 2010.

  6. Dongen vJJJ. Interprofessional collaboration in primary care teams: development and evaluation of a multifaceted programme to enhance patient-centredness and efficiency. Maastricht: Maastricht University. 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Doornebosch AJ, Smaling HJA, Achterberg WP. Interprofessional collaboration in long term care and rehabilitation: a systematic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2022;1.

  8. Rosell L, Alexandersson N, Hagberg O, Nilbert M. Benefits, barriers and opinions on multidisciplinary team meetings: a survey in Swedish cancer care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):249.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Tyson SF, Burton L, McGovern A. Multi-disciplinary team meetings in stroke rehabilitation: an observation study and conceptual framework. Clin Rehabil. 2014;28(12):1237–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ellis G, Sevdalis N. Understanding and improving multidisciplinary team working in geriatric medicine. Age Ageing. 2019;48(4):498–505.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Everink I. Geriatric rehabilitation. Development, implementation and evaluation of an integrated care pathway for patients with complex health problems. Maastricht: Maastricht University. 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bolle S, Smets EMA, Hamaker ME, Loos EF, van Weert JCM. Medical decision making for older patients during multidisciplinary oncology team meetings. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019;10(1):74–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Borgstrom E, Cohn S, Driessen A, Martin J, Yardley S. Multidisciplinary team meetings in palliative care: an ethnographic study. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2021.

  14. Greenhalgh J, Flynn R, Long AF, Tyson S. Tacit and encoded knowledge in the use of standardised outcome measures in multidisciplinary team decision making: a case study of in-patient neurorehabilitation. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(1):183–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kingsley. Patient-reported outcome measures and patientreported experience measures. BJA Educ. 2017;17(4):137–44.

  16. Svennevig J. Interaction in workplace meetings introduction. Discourse Stud. 2012;14(1):3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shaughnessy JJZE, Zechmeister JS. Research methods in psychology. 6th ed. United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill. 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bryman A. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2016;747.

    Google Scholar 

  19. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Everink IH, van Haastregt JC, Maessen JM, Schols JM, Kempen GI. Process evaluation of an integrated care pathway in geriatric rehabilitation for people with complex health problems. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Schols JM, Crebolder HF, van Weel C. Nursing home and nursing home physician: the Dutch experience. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2004;5(3):207–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoek JF, Ribbe MW, Hertogh CM, van der Vleuten CP. The role of the specialist physician in nursing homes: the Netherlands’ experience. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003;18(3):244–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Altheide D. Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociol. 1987;10(1):65–77.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Horlait M, Baes S, Dhaene S, Van Belle S, Leys M. How multidisciplinary are multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care? An observational study in oncology departments in Flanders, Belgium. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019;12:159–67.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Lindberg E, Persson E, Horberg U, Ekebergh M. Older patients’ participation in team meetings-a phenomenological study from the nurses’ perspective. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2013;8:21908.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Berben K, Walgrave E, Bergs J, Van Hecke A, Dierckx E, Verhaeghe S. The patient’s perspective on participation in a multidisciplinary team meeting: A phenomenological study. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2024.

  27. Bang H, Fuglesang SL, Ovesen MR, Eilertsen DE. Effectiveness in top management group meetings: the role of goal clarity, focused communication, and learning behavior. Scand J Psychol. 2010;51(3):253–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gittell JH, Seidner R, Wimbush J. A relational model of how High-Performance work systems work. Organ Sci. 2010;21(2):490–506.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chong WW, Aslani P, Chen TF. Shared decision-making and interprofessional collaboration in mental healthcare: a qualitative study exploring perceptions of barriers and facilitators. J Interprof Care. 2013;27(5):373–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lamprell K, Chittajallu R, Arnolda G, Easpaig BNG, Delaney GP, Liauw W et al. Multidisciplinary team meeting Chairs’ attitudes and perceived facilitators, barriers and ideal improvements to meeting functionality: A qualitative study. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2024.

  31. Gittell JH, Godfrey M, Thistlethwaite J. Interprofessional collaborative practice and relational coordination: improving healthcare through relationships. J Interprof Care. 2013;27(3):210–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sheffer-Hilel G, Drach-Zahavy A, Endevelt R. The informal champion’s role in promoting the care of Inter-Professional teams. Small Gr Res. 2023;54(2):219–42.

    Google Scholar 

  33. McCormack B. Person-centred care and measurement: the more one sees, the better one knows where to look. J Health Serv Res Po. 2022;27(2):85–7.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Feldthusen C, Forsgren E, Wallstrom S, Andersson V, Lofqvist N, Sawatzky R, et al. Centredness in health care: A systematic overview of reviews. Health Expect. 2022;25(3):885–901.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Tasseron-Dries PEM, Smaling HJA, Doncker SMMM, Achterberg WP, van der Steen JT. Family involvement in the Namaste care family program for dementia: A qualitative study on experiences of family, nursing home staff, and volunteers. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;121.

  36. Laird EA, McCance T, McCormack B, Gribben B. Patients’ experiences of in-hospital care when nursing staff were engaged in a practice development programme to promote person-centredness: A narrative analysis study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(9):1454–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Alharbi TS, Carlstrom E, Ekman I, Jarneborn A, Olsson LE. Experiences of person-centred care - patients’ perceptions: qualitative study. BMC Nurs. 2014;13:28.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Museux AC, Dumont S, Careau E, Milot E. Improving interprofessional collaboration: the effect of training in nonviolent communication. Soc Work Health Care. 2016;55(6):427–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rosenberg M, Molho P. Nonviolent (empathic) communication for health care providers. Haemophilia. 1998;4(4):335–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Grant S, Motala A, Chrystal JG, Shanman R, Zuchowski J, Zephyrin L, et al. Describing care coordination of gynecologic oncology in Western healthcare settings: a rapid review. Transl Behav Med. 2018;8(3):409–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rosell L, Wihl J, Nilbert M, Malmstrom M. Health professionals’ views on key enabling factors and barriers of National multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer care: A qualitative study. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2020;13:179–86.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Oeppen RS, Davidson M, Scrimgeour DS, Rahimi S, Brennan PA. Human factors awareness and recognition during multidisciplinary team meetings. J Oral Pathol Med. 2019;48(8):656–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Metiu A, Rothbard NP. Task bubbles, artifacts, shared emotion, and mutual focus of attention: A comparative study of the microprocesses of group engagement. Organ Sci. 2013;24(2):455–75.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. de Waal MWM, Jansen M, Bakker LM, Doornebosch AJ, Wattel EM, Visser D, et al. Construct validity, responsiveness, and interpretability of the Utrecht scale for evaluation of rehabilitation (USER) in patients admitted to inpatient geriatric rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 2024;38(1):98–108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Madelief Cleerdin, MD for helping with the data collection.

Funding

This work was supported by the University Network for the Care Sector South Holland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Hippocratespad 21, Leiden, 2300 RC, the Netherlands

    Arno J. Doornebosch, Wilco P. Achterberg & Hanneke J.A. Smaling

  2. University Network for the Care sector Zuid-Holland, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands

    Arno J. Doornebosch, Wilco P. Achterberg & Hanneke J.A. Smaling

Authors
  1. Arno J. Doornebosch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wilco P. Achterberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hanneke J.A. Smaling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors, A. D., W. A., and H. S., meet the criteria for authorship stated in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.• Study concept and design: all authors.• Acquisition of data: A. D., and H. S.• Analysis and interpretation of data: all authors• Drafting of the manuscript: all authors • Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors• Approval of manuscript: all authors• None of the authors have (potential) conflicts of interests to disclose.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arno J. Doornebosch.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Medical Research Ethics Committee Leiden Den Haag Delft (METC LDD) [N22.027] reviewed the study protocol and judged exempt from the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. For all participants, informed consent was obtained to participate in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doornebosch, A.J., Achterberg, W.P. & Smaling, H.J. Interprofessional collaboration during multidisciplinary team meetings in geriatric rehabilitation: an observational study. BMC Geriatr 25, 213 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12877-025-05870-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12877-025-05870-4

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us