Skip to main content

The Patient, the Multidisciplinary Team and the Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment

Part of the book series: Practical Issues in Geriatrics ((PIG))

Abstract

CGA is powerful. It encompasses a systematic approach to assessments, a patient-centred approach to goal setting and a collaborative team approach to both these plus treatment and follow-up. Standardised assessment tools and scales are useful, but it is important to understand their best uses and their potential for abuse. Different systems of scaling require different approaches to interpretation and statistical analysis. Within the overarching notion of CGA are included less intense assessments such as screening tools and broad and deep intensive assessments as are needed for many clinical encounters in acute care and long-term care. Tools which are useful for screening will not be sufficiently explanatory for care planning. CGA lends itself to the development of clinical prediction tools which can inform service design, explain causative relationships and sometimes help individual clinical decision-making. But caution is needed in the application of these tools in contexts in which they were not developed. The impact of CGA on clinical and service outcomes depends on the skills and composition of clinical teams and how effectively they work together. Experience and empirical research has helped an understanding of how to achieve optimal collaboration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi stud. Qual Life Res 19(4):539–549

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2012) Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 21(4):651–657. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sullivan Pepe M, Janes H, Longton G, Leisenring W, Newcomb P (2004) Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol 159:882–890. doi:10.1093/aje/kwh101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Debray TPA, Damen JAAG, Snell KIE, Ensor J, Hooft L, Reitsma JB, Riley RD, Moons KGM (2017) A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model performance. BMJ 356:i6460. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moons KGM, de Groot JAH, Bouwmeester W et al (2014) Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: the CHARMS checklist. PLoS Med 11:e1001744. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001744

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Korner M (2010) Interprofessional teamwork in medical rehabilitation: a comparison of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary team approach. Clin Rehabil 24(8):745–755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. American Geriatrics Society (2015) Care Coordination. Available from: http://www.americangeriatrics.org/advocacy_public_policy/care_coordination/. Accessed 7 Apr 2017

Further Reading

  1. Debray TPA, Vergouwe Y, Kpoffijberg H, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Moons KGM (2015) A new framework to enhance the interpretation of external validation studies of clinical prediction tools. J Clin Epidemiol 68:279–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Bouter LM, Vet HC, Terwee CB (2016) The COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther 20(2):105–113. doi:10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0143

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Steyerberg EW, Moons KGM, van der Windt DA et al (2013) PROGRESS group. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLoS Med 10:e1001381. doi:10.1371/journal

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Finbarr C. Martin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Martin, F.C. (2018). The Patient, the Multidisciplinary Team and the Assessment. In: Pilotto, A., Martin, F. (eds) Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Practical Issues in Geriatrics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62503-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62503-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62502-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62503-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics