There was good evidence that the strategies led to enhanced multidisciplinary teamwork, communication, and care-planning. Comparisons of Allied Health clinicians' responses on repeat survey items from pre- to post-implementation identified significant improvements in care-planning processes:
- Planning of patient care is useful/appropriate: 'strongly agree' 16.7% to 45.8%
- Planning of patient care is timely: 25.0% to 63.7%
Within the multidisciplinary survey, utilisation of a specific format for multidisciplinary meetings was identified as being effective in that it 'enabled better identification of functional loss' (65.3% agreed or strongly agreed), it 'helped identify patients at high-risk of poor outcomes and/or re-admission' (80.0%) and led to 'improved overall planning of patient care' (74.2%). Survey responses also suggested that collaborative functioning of the multidisciplinary team was enhanced - there was consensus that the utilisation of a specific format facilitated better communication (74.2%), teamwork (73.3%) and participation by all team members (66.5%). This is supported within the Allied Health staff surveys, with 63.3% reporting that it 'helped me to contribute to the discussions'.
In regards to the environmental strategies, communication and teamwork appear to have been directly and positively impacted - the majority of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that changes to the environment had facilitated better communication (67.6%) and participation by all team members (61.3%) and created better awareness of team members and their roles (77.4%).
Covert observations provided independent confirmation that meetings were functioning at a high level: the quality of communication (mean = 4.55/5); participation by AH attendees (mean = 4.55/5); efficiency (mean = 4.64/5); quality of care-planning (mean = 4.64/5); attention to patient function (mean = 4.64/5), and; overall effectiveness (mean = 4.55/5). Attendance of Allied Health clinicians at multidisciplinary meetings was also observed to be generally high following the implementation of the strategies, particularly for the larger teams: Social Work 83.9%, Occupational Therapy 96.8% and Physiotherapy 100%.
The development of a senior transdisciplinary Allied Health support role was perceived to be effective - multidisciplinary respondents reported that this strategy had facilitated better care planning (77.4% strongly agreed or agreed) and helped to maintain consistent processes within meetings (74.2%). Amongst Allied Health clinicians, 83%.32 agreed that utilisation of this role had 'supported Allied Health clinicians, for example, orientation for new staff, advocacy, prioritisation'.
Overall more than half (58.3%) of multidisciplinary staff believed that the multidisciplinary meetings were more effective following the introduction of the strategies. Moreover, the strategies were accepted for ongoing use by all General Medicine teams, across multiple wards, with high rates of endorsement:
- use of a specific format for multidisciplinary meetings (81.48% 'strongly supported' or 'supported')
- environmental strategies (77.78%)
- expansion of the Allied Health Clinical Leader role (77.78%)
- a weekly schedule for meetings (55.55%)
- utilisation of teams-based Allied Health staffing models (59.26%)
Support for ongoing use of sticker documentation was less clear (44.44%, with 28% neutral) and as a result, subsequent modifications to the sticker documentation process have been made in response to feedback.
Allocation of Allied Health staff to medical teams was not universally supported (59.30%). Behavioural mapping data highlighted the inefficiencies in this staffing model: compared to a co-located medical ward, this model was associated with marked increases in travel time between wards (+56 minutes per day) and waste activities (+64 minutes), with reductions in face-to-face care (-43 minutes).
In regard to referrals to Allied Health, there was positive feedback about the training activity that was completed: 75.0% of attendees rated the effectiveness of the presenter as either 'quite' or 'extremely' effective and 92.8% of attendees indicated that they had better awareness of how (to use the 'Med App') to make better referrals.
A repeat referral audit post-implementation demonstrated, however, that quality of referrals to AH still need to improve further.