PURPOSE: Effective communication in interprofessional rehabilitation teams is essential for optimal patient care. Despite the established importance, it remains unclear how interprofessional communication (IPC) within teams contributes to rehabilitation service delivery. The aim of this scoping review was to investigate how IPC has been described in rehabilitation literature. METHODS: Databases (Medline, CINAHL, ERIC, Embase, PsychInfo, and Academic Search Complete) were searched for studies including rehabilitation interprofessional communication. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified and applied, data were charted, and thematic analysis conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-nine papers were identified, and analysis revealed interrelated themes: communication processes, and inputs and effects. Formal communication processes were most prevalent, portraying variability in professional participation and a lack of patient involvement in dialogue and decision making. Inputs and effects were described at an organisational, team and individual level, highlighting the importance of communication throughout the healthcare hierarchy. CONCLUSIONS: IPC in rehabilitation is central to effective team function and patient care. To further our understanding, empirical studies examining everyday informal IPC, as well as formal ritualised encounters are needed. Additionally, conceptualisations of IPC would benefit from including the patients' perspective and by using theoretical framing to attend to places, spaces, and artefacts identified in this review.
PURPOSE: Effective communication in interprofessional rehabilitation teams is essential for optimal patient care. Despite the established importance, it remains unclear how interprofessional communication (IPC) within teams contributes to rehabilitation service delivery. The aim of this scoping review was to investigate how IPC has been described in rehabilitation literature. METHODS: Databases (Medline, CINAHL, ERIC, Embase, PsychInfo, and Academic Search Complete) were searched for studies including rehabilitation interprofessional communication. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified and applied, data were charted, and thematic analysis conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-nine papers were identified, and analysis revealed interrelated themes: communication processes, and inputs and effects. Formal communication processes were most prevalent, portraying variability in professional participation and a lack of patient involvement in dialogue and decision making. Inputs and effects were described at an organisational, team and individual level, highlighting the importance of communication throughout the healthcare hierarchy. CONCLUSIONS: IPC in rehabilitation is central to effective team function and patient care. To further our understanding, empirical studies examining everyday informal IPC, as well as formal ritualised encounters are needed. Additionally, conceptualisations of IPC would benefit from including the patients' perspective and by using theoretical framing to attend to places, spaces, and artefacts identified in this review.