A team needs clear roles as well as goodwill

What we found in the news

A September 2024 policy brief from the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (opens in a new tab) sets out strategies for implementing integrated care. One is:

“Building a multidisciplinary team culture with shared purpose.”

— European Observatory, How to implement integrated care?, strategy 6

The brief also addresses leadership, responsibility and the barriers between service systems. It is a policy synthesis, not a study proving that bringing several professions into one meeting will improve every outcome. For us, it raises a practical question about how a shared purpose becomes daily work.

Why this matters to us

Imagine a person preparing to resume a community activity after a period of additional support. In this illustrative situation, a clinical team, home-care service and community program each have a useful contribution.

The person may know that several people are involved without knowing which one is confirming the return date. Each team may be doing its own work well while the joining point remains unclear.

At genus, we are interested in the arrangement the person experiences. A list of professionals is not yet an explanation of who does what. The useful test is whether the next action has a responsible person and a route for questions.

Put the shared purpose into ordinary words

Start with what the person wants the combined support to make possible. Then ask each service to explain its contribution in language the person and other teams can understand.

For our return-to-activity example, one team may be responsible for professional advice, another for an agreed visit and another for arranging a suitable welcome. Those responsibilities should be checked with the actual services; they cannot be inferred from job titles alone.

Name the point where one team's work depends on another. If the return date is awaiting a decision, make that dependency visible instead of allowing separate records to imply everything is ready.

The person's view belongs in this discussion. They may want a slower return or a different activity. A team purpose that omits their preference can become efficient at arranging something they did not ask for.

End a meeting with an understandable next step

A useful meeting record distinguishes a decision, an action and a question still awaiting an answer.

For each action, identify the responsible person or role and the agreed route for reporting back. Check that the recipient has accepted the work and has authority to do it.

Avoid assigning an action to the team as a whole when a specific response is needed. Shared responsibility can become unclear responsibility if no one knows who is expected to act first.

The person receiving care should be able to understand what happens next without learning the organizational chart. Where an agreed contact can help them navigate the plan, explain that contact's role and availability accurately.

Clinical accountability remains with the appropriate professionals. A coordination meeting should clarify it, not blur it.

Make room for the boundary that needs work

Different organizations may have different records, access rules, schedules and eligibility requirements. Naming those differences helps teams plan around them.

Do not assume that a shared digital tool means information can move freely between services. Agree the relevant permissions, channels and responsibilities.

If one service cannot provide the expected support, bring that fact back into the plan. A task marked complete because it was forwarded elsewhere may hide the gap.

Managers can review a fictional journey across two services and identify the point at which neither team clearly owns the next question. That is a useful place for a joint process discussion. The solution may involve staffing, authority or service agreements as much as technology.

The genus connection

Today, the genus ecosystem can bring configured resources, communication and coordination workflows into an organization's experience. Connections between organizations depend on the agreed setup, access and integrations.

Those tools do not create a shared operating model by themselves. Teams still need to define the purpose, responsibilities and handoffs they want the technology to support.

Our interest is in making an agreed arrangement easier to follow. The best starting point is the person trying to continue their life across several services, and the practical question they need someone to own.

One question to take away

Where in your shared plan could an action still belong to everyone in principle and no one in practice?