This study surveyed 4 core hospice professionals (physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains) on their perceived level of interdisciplinary collaboration, the influences of interdisciplinary collaboration, and job satisfaction to determine potential similarities and differences based on profession and various demographic characteristics of the members or member hospices. Analysis found that there are overall no differences based on demographic characteristics. Differences between professions, while few, were largely in the area of perceptions on relationships between members of the hospice team. Specifically, social workers appear to perceive themselves as less connected to the other members of the interdisciplinary team, an area theorized to influence interdisciplinary collaboration. Difference between professions was also found in job satisfaction. Implications for hospice practice and interdisciplinary education are discussed.
BennahumDA. The historical development of hospice and palliative care. In: FormanWBKitzesJAAndersonRPSheehanDK, eds. Hospice and Palliative Care: Concepts and Practice. Sudbery, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publications; 2003:1–12.
2.
ShermanDW. End-of-life care: challenges and opportunities for health care professionals. In: CorlessIBFosterZ, eds. The Hospice Heritage: Celebrating our Future. Philadelphia, PA: Haworth Press; 1999:109–121.
3.
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Public Law No. 97-248, 96 STAT. 324; 1982.
4.
CasselCKDemelB. Remembering death: public policy in the USA. J R Soc Med. 2001;94(9):433–436.
5.
KastenbaumRJ. Death, Society, and Human Experience. 8th ed.Boston, MA: Pearson; 2003.
6.
FinebergIC. Preparing professionals for family conferences in palliative care: evaluating results of an interdisciplinary approach. J Palliat Med. 2005;8(4):857–866.
7.
AnsariWEPhillipsCJHammickM. Collaboration and partnerships: developing the evidence base. Health Soc Care Community. 2001;9(4):215–227.
8.
BrownLTuckerCDomokosT. Evaluating the impact of integrated health and social care teams on older people living in the community. Health Soc Care Community. 2003;11(2):85–94.
9.
Faulkner SchofieldRAmodeoM. Interdisciplinary teams in health care and human services settings: are they effective?Health Soc Work. 1999:24(3):210–219.
10.
GrumbachKBodenheimerT. Can health care teams improve primary care practice?JAMA. 2004;291(10):1246–1251.
11.
HallPWeaverL. Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: a long and winding road. Med Educ. 2001;35(9):867–875.
12.
MickanSM. Evaluating the effectiveness of health care teams. Aust Health Rev. 2005;29(2):211–217.
13.
MizrahiTAbramsonJS. Collaboration between social workers and physicians: perspectives on a shared case. Soc Work Health Care. 2000;31(3):1–24.
14.
San Martin-RodriguezLBeaulieuMDD’AmourDFerrada-VidelaM. The determinant of successful collaboration: a review of theoretical and empirical studies. J Interprof Care. 2005;19(suppl 1):137–147.
15.
RabowMDibbleSLPantilatSMcPheeS. The comprehensive care team: a controlled trial of outpatient palliative medicine consultation. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(1):83–91.
16.
WagnerAKFabioTZafonteRDGoldbergGMarionDWPeitzmanAB. Physical medicine and rehabilitation consultation: relationships with acute functional outcome, length of stay, and discharge planning after traumatic brain injury. Am J Phys Med Rehab. 2003;82(7):526–536.
17.
Brita-RossiPAdduciDKaufmanJLipsonSJTotteCWassermanK. Improving the process of care: the cost-quality value of interdisciplinary collaboration. J Nurs Care Qual. 1996;10(2):10–16.
18.
SommersLSMartonKIBarbacciaJCRandolphJ. Physician, nurse and social worker collaboration in primary care for chronically ill seniors. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(12):1825–1833.
19.
Haycock-StuartEHoustonNM. Evaluation study of a resource for developing education, audit and teamwork in primary care. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2005;6(3):251–268.
20.
ClarkLLedySMcDonaldL. Spirituality and job satisfaction among hospice interdisciplinary team members. J Palliat Med. 2007;10(6):1321–1327.
21.
BowlingNAHammondGD. A meta-analytic examination of the construct validity of the Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire job satisfaction subscale. J Vocat Behav. 2008;73(1):63–77.
22.
ConnerSREganKAKwiloszDMLarsonDGReeseDJ. Interdisciplinary approaches to assisting with end-of-life care and decision making. Am Behav Sci. 2002;46(3):340–356.
23.
CowlesLA. Social Work in the Health Field: A Care Perspective. New York, NY: The Haworth Press; 2000.
24.
AbramsonJSMizarahiT. When social workers and physicians collaborate: positive and negative interdisciplinary experiences. Soc Work. 1996;41(3):270–281.
25.
BaileyPJonesLWayD. Family physician/nurse practitioner: stories of collaboration. J Ad Nurs. 2006;53(4):381–391.
26.
RiceAH. Interdisciplinary collaboration in health care: education, practice and research. National Acad Pract Forum. 2000;2(1):59–73.
27.
BrewerGD. The challenges of interdisciplinarity. Public Sci. 1999;32(4):327–337.
28.
IrvineRKerridgeIMcPheeJFreemanS. Interprofessionalism and ethics: consensus or clash of cultures?J Interprof Care. 2002;16(3):199–210.
29.
YoungerwerthJTwaddleM. Cultures of interdisciplinary teams: How to foster good dynamics. J Palliat Med. 2011;14(5):650–654.
30.
DeLoachR. Job satisfaction and hospice interdisciplinary team members. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2003;20(6):434–440.
31.
Parker-OliverDWittenberg-LylesEMDayM. Measuring interdisciplinary perceptions of collaboration on hospice teams. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2007;24(1):49–53.
32.
BronsteinLR. Index of interdisciplinary collaboration. Soc WorkRes. 2002;26(2):113–123.
33.
BronsteinLR. A model for interdisciplinary collaboration. Soc Work. 2003;48(3):297–306.
34.
BronsteinL. Interdisciplinary Collaboration between Social Workers and other Professionals: The Design and Development of an Assessment Instrument [dissertation]. Miami Shores, FL: Barry University; 1999.
35.
CoopmanSJ. Democracy, performance, and outcomes in interdisciplinary care teams. J Business Commun. 2001;38(3):261–284.
RubinABabbieE. Research Methods for Social Work. 7th ed.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co; 2010.
38.
Parker-OliverDBronsteinLRKurzejeskiL. Examining variables related to successful collaboration on the hospice team. Health Soc Work. 2005;30(4):279–286.
39.
CammannCFichmanMJenkinsGDKleshJR. Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In: SeashoreSELawlerEEIIIMirvisPHCammannC, eds. Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures, and Practices. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1998:71–138.
40.
Parker-OliverDPeckM. Inside the interdisciplinary team experiences of hospice social workers. J Soc Work End Life PalliatCare. 2006;2(3):7–21.
41.
Parker OliverDTatumPKappJWallaceA. Interdisciplinary collaboration: the voices of hospice medical directors. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2010;27(8):537–544.
42.
Wittenberg-LylesEParker OliverDDemirisGBaldwinPRegehrK. Communication dynamics in hospice teams: understanding the role of the chaplain in interdisciplinary team collaboration. J Palliat Med. 2008;11(10):1330–1335.
43.
MonroeJDeLoachRJ. Job satisfaction: how do social workers fare with other interdisciplinary team members in hospice setting?OMEGA. 2004;49(4):327–346.
44.
CasarettDJSpencerCHaskinsMTenoJ. One big happy family? interdisciplinary variation in job satisfaction among hospice providers. J Palliat Med. 2011;14(8):913–917.
ReeseDJRaymerM. Relationships between social work involvement and hospice outcomes: results of the national hospice social work survey. Soc Work. 2004;49(3):415–422.
48.
Wittenberg-LylesEM. Information sharing in interdisciplinary team meetings: an evaluation of hospice goals. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(10):1377–1391.
49.
ThatcherSMBGreerLL. Does it really matter if you recognize who I am? The implications of identity comprehension for individuals in work teams. J Manage. 2008:34(1);5–24.
50.
Temkin-GreenerHGrossDKunitzSJMukamelD. Measuring interdisciplinary team performance in a long-term care setting. Med Care. 2004;42(5):472–481.
