The Team Approach for Those with MNCD: Interdisciplinary and Collaborative

  • Maureen C. Nash


Major neurocognitive disorders cause complex challenges for the people diagnosed with them as well as those who care for them and about them. To fully support a person as they move through the trajectory of their disease, comprehensive care requires the most interdisciplinary integration possible. Evidence supports the use of an interdisciplinary team where possible especially for those with the most complex needs. This chapter explores advantages and disadvantages of different models of team care in the context of caring for someone with significant multimorbid disease which affects many different areas of brain functioning including neuropsychiatric symptoms. Specific communication tools that may be helpful to the interdisciplinary team are also reviewed.


Dementia Interdisciplinary care Shared decision-making Collaboration Communication 


  1. 1.
    Boustani MA, Frame A, Munger S, Healey P, Westlund J, Farlow M, Hake A, Austrom MG, Shepard P, Bubp C, Azar J, Nazir A, Adams N, Campbell NL, Dexter P, Chehresa A. Connecting research discovery with care delivery in dementia: the development of the Indianapolis Discovery Network for Dementia. Clin Interv Aging. 2012;7:509. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bridges DR, Davidson RA, Odegard PS, Maki IV, Tomkowiak J. Interprofessional collaboration: three best practice models of interprofessional education. Med Educ Online. 2011;16
  3. 3.
    Daly RL, Bunn F, Goodman C. Shared decision-making for people living with dementia in extended care settings: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e018977. Scholar
  4. 4.
    French DD, LaMantia MA, Livin LR, Herceg D, Alder CA, Boustani MA. Healthy aging brain center improved care coordination and produced net savings. Health Aff. 2014;33(4):613. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Galvin JE, Valois L, Zweig Y. Collaborative transdisciplinary team approach for dementia care. Neurodegner Dis Manag. 2014;4:455–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iliffe S. Myths and realities in multidisciplinary team-working. London J Prim Care. 2008;1:100–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Guidelines for communicating with physicians using the SBAR process. IHI/Topics/PatientSafety/SafetyGeneral/Tools/SystemsAnalysisofClinicalIncidentsTheLondon Protocol.htm. Accessed 18 Nov 2004.
  8. 8.
    Kodner DL, Kyriacou CK. Fully integrated care for frail elderly: two American models. Int J Integr Care. 2000;1:e08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leavitt MO. Interim report to congress the quality and cost of the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE); 2009. Accessed 27 Nov 2018.
  10. 10.
    National PACE Association. Is PACE for You? 2018. Last accessed 29 Nov 2018.
  11. 11.
    O’Daniel M, Rosenstein AH. Professional communication and team collaboration. In: Hughes RG, editor. Patient safety and quality: an evidence-based handbook for nurses. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.. Chapter 33. Available from: Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trojanowskia JQ, Arnolda SE, Karlawisha JH, Naylora M, Brundena KR, Le VM. A model for improving the treatment and care of Alzheimer’s disease patients through interdisciplinary research. Alzheimers Dement. 2012;8(6):564–73. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tsakitzidis G, Timmermans O, Callewaert N, et al. Outcome indicators on interprofessional collaboration interventions for elderly. Int J Integr Care. 2016;16(2):–5. Published 2016 May 16.
  14. 14.
    Zwarenstein M, Goldman J, Reeves S. Interprofessional collaboration: effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD000072.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maureen C. Nash
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of MedicineOregon Health and Sciences UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Providence ElderPlace OregonPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations