Woody Charlotte A, Baxter Amanda J, Harris Meredith G, Siskind Dan J, Whiteford Harvey A
Research Officer, Policy and Epidemiology Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Wacol, QLD, and; School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Research Fellow, Policy and Epidemiology Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Wacol, QLD, and; School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Australas Psychiatry. 2018 Jun;26(3):267-275. doi: 10.1177/1039856217751783. Epub 2018 Feb 8.
Multidisciplinary teams in mental health receive limited guidance, leading to inconsistent practices. We undertook a systematic review of the characteristics and practices of multidisciplinary team reviews for patients with severe mental illness or in relevant mental health service settings.
Sources published since 2000 were located via academic database and web searches. Results were synthesised narratively.
A total of 14 sources were analysed. Important characteristics and practices identified included routine monitoring and evaluation, good communication, equality between team members, and clear documentation practices. Success factors included defined leadership and clear team goals. Four sources described considerations for patients with complex clinical needs, including allocating sufficient time for discussion, maintaining connections with community providers, and ensuring culturally sensitive practices.
No single best practice model was found, due to variations in team caseload, casemix, and resourcing levels. However, key ingredients for success were proposed. Sources were mostly descriptive; there remains a lack of evidence-based guidance regarding multidisciplinary team review characteristics and practices.
心理健康领域的多学科团队得到的指导有限，导致实践不一致。我们对针对严重精神疾病患者或在相关心理健康服务环境中的多学科团队评估的特征和实践进行了系统综述。
通过学术数据库和网络搜索查找2000年以来发表的资料来源。对结果进行叙述性综合。
共分析了14个资料来源。确定的重要特征和实践包括常规监测与评估、良好沟通、团队成员平等以及明确的记录做法。成功因素包括明确的领导和清晰的团队目标。四个资料来源描述了对有复杂临床需求患者的考虑因素，包括分配足够的讨论时间、与社区提供者保持联系以及确保文化敏感的做法。
由于团队工作量、病例组合和资源水平的差异，未找到单一的最佳实践模式。然而，提出了成功的关键要素。资料来源大多是描述性的；关于多学科团队评估特征和实践，仍然缺乏循证指导。
