The Collaboration of Music Therapy and Speech-Language Pathology in the Treatment of Neurogenic Communication Disorders: Part II--Collaborative Strategies and Scope of Practice

Abstract

ABSTRACT: This two-part article focuses on the collaboration specifically of music therapy (MT) and speech-language pathology (SLP) in the treatment of neurogenic communication disorders (NCDs) and the professional documents of each profession that guide collaborative efforts. Part II of this article will include the following: (a) definitions of three primary collaborative models: multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary; (b) application of the various collaborative models in terms of MT and SLP treatment of NCDs; (c) overview of the professional documents from MT and SLP that guide collaboration, including Code of Ethics, Standards of Clinical Practice, and Scope of Practice; and (d) recommendations for ethical and effective collaboration. Collaborative Treatment Approaches According to the 2004 AMTA Sourcebook, 380 music therapists (MTs) serve clients with speech impairments. Among those served are persons whose communication disorder has a neurological basis (e.g., head injuries, Rarkinson's disease, stroke, etc.). Oftentimes, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) serve a key role in the rehabilitation of persons with neurologically based communication disorders; therefore, MTs serving this population may need to coordinate treatment plans with SLPs. In fact, according to Register (2002), of the 695 music therapy respondents who report that they collaborate with other disciplines, 44.6% collaborate with SLPs. Applying collaboration to music therapy practice can contribute to other disciplines' improved understanding of the therapeutic uses of music and related benefits of music therapy (Register, 2002). Creating an optimal rehabilitative environment for the complex and diverse needs of individuals with neurologic deficits, and specifically neurogenic communication disorders (NCDs), may require the collaboration of several different therapeutic fields such as music therapy and speech therapy (Claeys, Miller, Dalloul-Rampersad, & Kollar, 1989; Lucia, 1987; Magee, 1999). Collaboration can be defined as the process of working jointly with others in an intellectual endeavor to bring about change, and it implies shared responsibility (Register, 2002, p. 305). Different models of collaboration are commonly used and each treatment model has strengths and weaknesses (Drew & Hardman, 2000). This article will focus on the collaboration process, specifically of music therapy and speech-language pathology in the treatment of NCDs, and the professional documents of each profession that guide collaborative efforts. The article will include the following: (a) definitions of three primary collaborative models: multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary; (b) application of the various collaboration models in terms of MT and SLP treatment of NCDs; (c) overview of the professional documents that guide collaboration, including Code of Ethics, Standards of Clinical Practice, and Scope of Practice; and (d) recommendations for ethical and effective collaboration. Multidisciplinary Model According to Drew and Hardman (2000), in a multidisciplinary model, various professions approach a client's needs from their own focus or area of expertise. There is little true collaboration among the various professions and virtually no crossing of disciplinary boundaries with regard to treatment provision. Rather, the treatment team is made up of several professionals who are all working with the same client or patient through separate modalities. Within a multidisciplinary model, each profession implements his or her own goals and interventions and treats accordingly (M. Adamek, personal communications, February 11, 2002 and September 13, 2002; Drew & Hardman, 2000). An obvious strength of this approach is the unique and valuable contributions of each discipline. Conversely, the lack of overlap among professionals involved poses a weakness due to possible communiciation gaps or possible inconsistencies within the treatment plan. …