A new way of viewing the interdisciplinary team

Abstract

D URING THE NEAR that I have served as President of American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, I have given much thought to organization's focus on rehabilitation research and to how ACRM might more fully promote, foster, and encourage research activities that are relevant. Two documents have influenced my thinking about research; first is Institute of[ Medicine report titled Enabling America: I 1 Assessing Role of Rehabilitation Science and Engineering, and second is NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement on Rehabilitation of Persons With Traumatic Brain Injury. 2 Both documents support in different ways importance of what I chll the interdisciplinary team. As a clinician, I learned years ago that results were far more likely to be achieved as a part of a team than by any individual effort. And ACRM has been built on commitment to interdisciplinary rehabilitation practice and collaborative relationships. Traditionally we think of interdisciplinary team as those individuals who are committed to achieving an outcome that is meaningful for a person with a disability. The team includes person who is being served and those who provide services, whether that means just a couple--perhaps a speech/language pathologist and a physical therapist--or many, such as physician, nurse, social worker, physical therapist, occupational therapist, and vocational counselor. But who would make up an interdisciplinary t~am if outcome we wanted to achieve was relevant rehabilitation research? John Whyte's 3 commentary on Enabling America report related to difficulty in identifying research models that optimally balance specialization and integration. He asked, for example, How will work of a molecular biologist, studying process of disk degeneration, be shaped by exposure to employment research on low back pain? In my view, this new interdisciplinary team includes: 1. The generators of research--those who ask questions (perhaps consumers, perhaps those who pay for treatment-they want to know what works), those who call for research in certain areas (governmental agencies who create RFPs), and of course, those who do research. 2. The users of research--those who might try innovative treatment approaches, those who need to decide whether an approach is worth paying for, those who are seeking assistance for their loved ones. 3. The funders Of research--those who are willing to pay to find answers. It was interesting to me that of 29 points made in consensus statement in response to question, What research is needed ~o guide rehabilitation of people with brain injury? 18 of thei responses absolutely required collaborative activity among researchers and service providers, and all but just a few clearly irequired collaboration by people who have experienced brain injury. For example: