Nicole Geach1, Nima G Moghaddam2, Danielle De Boos3. 1. Trent Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, University of Lincoln, UK. 2. Trent Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, College of Social Sciences, University of Lincoln, UK. 3. Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, The University of Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Team formulation is promoted by professional practice guidelines for clinical psychologists. However, it is unclear whether team formulation is understood/implemented in consistent ways - or whether there is outcome evidence to support the promotion of this practice. This systematic review aimed to (1) synthesize how team formulation practice is defined and implemented by practitioner psychologists and (2) analyse the range of team formulation outcomes in the peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched in June 2016. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria and were quality assessed. Extracted data were synthesized using content analysis. RESULTS: Descriptions of team formulation revealed three main forms of instantiation: (1) a structured, consultation approach; (2) semi-structured, reflective practice meetings; and (3) unstructured/informal sharing of ideas through routine interactions. Outcome evidence linked team formulation to a range of outcomes for staff teams and service users, including some negative outcomes. Quality appraisal identified significant issues with evaluation methods; such that, overall, outcomes were not well-supported. CONCLUSIONS: There is weak evidence to support the claimed beneficial outcomes of team formulation in practice. There is a need for greater specification and standardization of 'team formulation' practices, to enable a clearer understanding of any relationships with outcomes and implications for best-practice implementations. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Under the umbrella term of 'team formulation', three types of practice are reported: (1) highly structured consultation; (2) reflective practice meetings; and (3) informal sharing of ideas. Outcomes linked to team formulation, including some negative outcomes, were not well evidenced. Research using robust study designs is required to investigate the process and outcomes of team formulation practice.
PURPOSE: Team formulation is promoted by professional practice guidelines for clinical psychologists. However, it is unclear whether team formulation is understood/implemented in consistent ways - or whether there is outcome evidence to support the promotion of this practice. This systematic review aimed to (1) synthesize how team formulation practice is defined and implemented by practitioner psychologists and (2) analyse the range of team formulation outcomes in the peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched in June 2016. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria and were quality assessed. Extracted data were synthesized using content analysis. RESULTS: Descriptions of team formulation revealed three main forms of instantiation: (1) a structured, consultation approach; (2) semi-structured, reflective practice meetings; and (3) unstructured/informal sharing of ideas through routine interactions. Outcome evidence linked team formulation to a range of outcomes for staff teams and service users, including some negative outcomes. Quality appraisal identified significant issues with evaluation methods; such that, overall, outcomes were not well-supported. CONCLUSIONS: There is weak evidence to support the claimed beneficial outcomes of team formulation in practice. There is a need for greater specification and standardization of 'team formulation' practices, to enable a clearer understanding of any relationships with outcomes and implications for best-practice implementations. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Under the umbrella term of 'team formulation', three types of practice are reported: (1) highly structured consultation; (2) reflective practice meetings; and (3) informal sharing of ideas. Outcomes linked to team formulation, including some negative outcomes, were not well evidenced. Research using robust study designs is required to investigate the process and outcomes of team formulation practice.