CHAPTER Professionalism,

30 Communication,
and Teamwork
Janet Falk-Kessler

OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION
WORKPLACE PROFESSIONALISM AND BEHAVIOR
PROFESSIONALISM AND TEAMWORK
Multidisciplinary Teams
Interdisciplinary Teams
Transdisciplinary Teams
Research Teams
Healthcare Policy Teams
SCHOLARSHIP: PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS
PROFESSIONALISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA: OPPORTUNITIES
AND PITFALLS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

1. Understand what it means to be a professional.

2. Understand what types of behaviors are viewed as
professional and as unprofessional, and why.
3. Understand the value of teamwork.
4. Be able to distinguish between different types of teams and
how they function.
5. Be able to describe the “dos and don’ts” of social media
participation.

Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to review professionalism and
collaborative behavior. In this chapter, professionalism encompasses
how one presents oneself as a professional and the individual’s
responsibilities and obligations as a professional and to one’s
profession.
Professionalism is a concept that has many attributes. It
includes behaviors that are on public display; knowledge and skill-
based competencies that are continually sought and demonstrated;
and overall responsibilities to one’s clients, colleagues, profession,
and society (Monrouxe et al., 2011). Becoming a professional is a
process—one that begins by learning what a professional is and
does, enacting the professional role by meeting expectations, and
eventually embodying and internalizing professional qualities.
Implicit and explicit guidelines, rules, behaviors, and expectations
within social contexts contribute to professional development
(Monrouxe et al., 2011).
Professionalism reflects the person as well as one’s profession.
Within medically related professions, professionalism at its core is a
belief system that embraces a social contract on healthcare delivery
that asserts competency and ethical standards (Wynia et al., 2014).
These characteristics echo how professionalism in occupational
therapy (OT) has been described (Glennon & Van Oss, 2010;
Hordichuk et al., 2015) and served as the foundation for one’s
behaviors, commitments, collaboration, and teamwork. As one’s
professionalism develops, one’s role as a contributing member of
the healthcare team and the OT profession is strengthened. This
chapter reviews professionalism as it relates to each of these areas.
Professionalism has been garnering a vast amount of attention in
both the public and professional media. Demonstrating
professionalism has become a focus within many academic settings,
with the emergence of professionalism assessments (Wang et al.,
2017; Yuen et al., 2016; Ziring et al., 2015). The development of
values, attitudes, and behaviors that mirror one’s profession is a
process that continually evolves throughout one’s career and is in
part reflective of a contract between one’s discipline and society in
general (Cruess & Cruess, 2009; Hordichuk et al., 2015).
Maintaining standards of practice, which include maintaining
competency, demonstrating evidence-based practice, using
appropriate judgment, and abiding by our profession’s ethical code,
is a professional responsibility (American Occupational Therapy
Association [AOTA], 2020a).
Participating in local, state, and national organizations that work
to market OT services to various stakeholders—including
consumers, third-party payers, and policymakers—and that sponsor
continuing education opportunities, provide members with a range
of literature, and inform members of legislation as well as other
concerns of interest is part of one’s professional responsibility. This
is further articulated through the core tenets of Vision 2025 (AOTA,
2017), which demands the highest standards of professionalism.
Historically, the transmission of professionalism relied on
immersion in a professional environment. Distinct from professional
identity, professionalism is defined by behaviors demonstrated in
various contexts: with clients, on healthcare teams, and through all
modes of communication. Recognizing that each generation brings
a different understanding of what professionalism is, many have
argued that simply being in professional environments may not be
enough to learn the behaviors; instead, it is to be taught within
academic and clinical programs (Cruess & Cruess, 2009; Lindheim
et al., 2016; Monrouxe et al., 2011; Ziring et al., 2015). These
obligations and responsibilities are depicted in Figure 30.1.
Moreover, professional expectations may change with time. As
professionalism in part reflects the relationship between a
profession and its social context, responsibilities may expand. For
example, when healthcare biases and occupational justice inequities
are recognized, our role as professionals must address these
concerns (see Expanding Our Perspectives). The importance of
recognizing and taking action against biases have been reinforced
by professional organizations (e.g., AOTA, 2020a; Stanley et al.,
2020).

FIGURE 30.1 Components of professionalism.

Workplace Professionalism and

Behavior
In the last few decades, many medical professionals have
emphasized and embraced their long-held, traditional values. The
“Occupational Therapy Practice Framework” (AOTA, 2020e), with its
emphasis on occupational engagement and participation, similarly
reminds practitioners of the roots of professional practice and the
professional responsibility to use terminology that reflects these
values (Youngstrom, 2002) and affirms one’s identity (Fawcett,
2013). The context for using terminology, however, is critical in
communication; overly technical terminology with clients, for
example, may actually result in a diminished professional
presentation (Berman et al., 2016).

EXPANDING OUR PERSPECTIVES

Professionalism Is a Social Contract

Janet Falk-Kessler
A social contract is not a new idea. While its origins date back thousands of
years, current usage frames it as an agreement of reciprocal obligations
between groups within society, or groups with society (D’Agostino et al.,
2021). In healthcare, patients benefit from ethical obligations, such as
beneficence and confidentiality, and practitioners benefit from societal
rewards, such as autonomy and self-regulation (Cruess & Cruess, 2020). The
social contract framework has been greatly influenced by 20th-century
philosopher Rawls (1971), as he positioned his theory of justice within the
social contract framework, and in doing so promoted its application in a
variety of arenas. When applied to healthcare, a just society should
emphasize access for all to healthcare as well as recognize and address the
social determinants of health (Ekmekci & Arda, 2015). As occupational
therapists, addressing the occupational determinants of health can be part of
our profession’s social contract. In doing so, our ethical obligations include
attention to our clients’ capability, as discussed by Hammell (2015), to
participate in meaningful occupations.
Engagement in occupation, as a determinant of health, is at the core of
everything occupational therapists believe and do. To this end,
professionalism, which encompasses our knowledge base, our behaviors, and
our responsibilities, reveals a belief system to which we are all accountable
regardless of practice area. Our loyalty is not only to our clients and our
profession but also to the public. To this end, ensuring justice: fairness in
access to treatment, utilizing skills and knowledge that are reflective of
current evidence, being mindful of occupational justice within treatment
 settings and post discharge, are a sample of what should dominate an
occupational therapist’s practice. Thus, what we do must mirror values that
are worthy of the public’s trust (Wynia et al., 2014).
Recent events, specifically health inequities in the COVID-19 pandemic
along with implicit and explicit racial and cultural prejudices, remind us that
professionalism is a social contract. As such, we have an obligation to
examine how our prescription of occupation and our desired outcome of
enabling fulfilling participation is impacted by biases. To do this, we must
start by examining our own implicit biases, which are unconscious attitudes,
prejudices, and stereotypes (Byrne & Tanesini, 2015), and how these
influence our interactions with our clients and the choices we as
professionals make about occupational participation.
Enabling participation requires an occupational justice lens that is focused
on treatment and on policy at both the individual and population levels. The
way in which we view our various OT roles may need to expand. For
example, if a client on an inpatient hospital unit with whom you are working
is being discharged home, and you are confident all OT goals have been met
and they have the functional ability to engage in occupations of their choice,
are you also confident that they will fully participate in their preferred
occupations? Is it part of your role to ensure that once discharged, they are
able to access their community’s offerings? Is following up with your client
after they are discharged so that you can identify any barriers to
participation part of your role? As a professional with the obligation of
ensuring inclusive participation and client-centered practice, it may be
necessary to examine and redefine OT’s role in all areas of practice. Having
the functional ability to engage is not the same as having the opportunity to
engage. The OT profession, for which Vision 2025 includes calls for equity,
inclusion, diversity, advocacy, and accessibility (AOTA, 2017), appeals for a
change in how occupational therapists see their role. It is within the realm of
our professional responsibility to identify outcomes beyond abilities. It is also
incumbent upon occupational therapists to enable all team members to
adopt this approach for treatment and discharge planning. Professionalism,
as a social contract, demands advocacy toward a more just environment.
Questions to consider are as follows: Are client-centered goals developed
within a structured context (hospital environment) enough? If not, should
the provider include an additional goal/plan to ensure they are addressing
cultural prejudices, health, social, and economic disparities outside of that
structured context?

Regardless of situation or interaction (e.g., a professor,

supervisor, client and/or the client’s family, a team meeting, or
conference presentation), professionalism is expected. Professional
behavior has become so important that it is included in academic
accreditation standards for all levels of OT education (Accreditation
Council for Occupational Therapy Education, 2018) and is an
integral part of the competencies expected in both level I (AOTA,
2020d) and level II (AOTA, 2020b, 2020c) fieldwork experiences.
Among the many characteristics that shape professionals are
values about work, roles, and service recipients. Many believe that
values, especially those that revolve around work ethic, cause
conflict in academic and employment environments. In recent
decades, attention has been paid to differences in work values and
expectation that is generationally linked (Lyons & Kuron, 2014;
Wiedmer, 2015). How one behaves is rooted in the cultural and
societal norms and expectations in which one was raised. It is also
shaped by impactful events and experiences. The full impact on the
generations, for example, of the COVID-19 pandemic, the MeToo
movement, and the Black Lives Matter movement are yet to be fully
realized.
When considering the characteristics of different generations,
one should not assume that all traits are exhibited by all within one
generational cohort or are exhibited consistently regardless of the
environment. Nor should one assume these characteristics
transcend cultures. Some traits, such as ease with technology,
might not translate to professional settings (Hills et al., 2016), and
one’s identity within a generation, rather than one’s birth date, may
inform behavior (Campbell et al., 2017; Lyons & Kuron, 2014). But it
is nonetheless important to recognize that differences that
distinguish cohorts impact both communication and one’s
perception of professionalism and work ethic, along with one’s
expectation of the work environment (Anselmo-Witzel et al., 2017;
Ozkan, & Solmaz, 2015; Wiedmer, 2015).
Understanding and respecting generational differences, however,
is important for two overarching reasons: as a treating professional,
when one considers the habits, values, and perceptions of the
different generations, one is better prepared for client-centered
care. Understanding how an older client might perceive a behavior
demonstrated by a young practitioner, for example, is critical to the
client–practitioner interaction.
The second consideration regarding generational differences
involves one’s role as a team member. Because there may be
varying perspectives on what constitutes professional and
unprofessional behavior, interpersonal conflict between
professionals can arise (Johnston, 2006). Furthermore, individuals
may acknowledge what is considered unprofessional behavior but
rationalize this behavior as not unprofessional when they
themselves display it (Aurora et al., 2008). Such individuals have no
idea that they are perceived as inappropriate, unreasonable, and
even disrespectful. It has been suggested that these behaviors
reflect how individuals perceive and understand rules and their
expectations of and for themselves (Lake, 2009). As an example,
some individuals of more recent generations grew up within home,
school, and societal environments that promoted self-esteem,
emphasized individualism, and placed little emphasis on social rules.
This can result in the expectation of entitlements (Twenge, 2006;
Ventriglio & Bhugra, 2016). Many from earlier generations grew up
with a respect for authority and the notion that achievement is
based on what one has actually accomplished.
Differences in how one perceives work/career values and
rewards can also lead to conflict (Lipscomb, 2010). When one
considers that professionalism within academia and healthcare is
typically defined by those from the Silent or Baby Boomer
generations, it is not surprising that those from the more recent
generations are unaware that their attitudes and behaviors are
viewed as unprofessional. These attitudes and behaviors may be at
the root of fieldwork and workplace difficulties rather than
knowledge (Langenfeld et al., 2014). See OT Story 30.1.

OT STORY 30.1 JOHN ON FIELDWORK

John Dimet is a graduate student in OT and has just started his first level II
fieldwork experience. He has completed all of his coursework. He is 26 years
old, having spent the time between undergraduate and graduate school
completing his prerequisites, engaging in volunteer work, and working at his
aunt’s restaurant. Prior to the start of his fieldwork, he sent his supervisor,
who he had not yet met, the following e-mail: Hey Sarah, looking forward to
starting on Monday. What time should I arrive, and is there a dress code? JD
John met his supervisor on Monday at 8 AM as instructed, and they
immediately went to morning rounds. His university’s fieldwork coordinator
had told him that there would be days he would need to arrive at 7 AM so
that he could participate in activities of daily living (ADLs) sessions with
clients. The site was an inpatient rehabilitation setting with an average
length of stay of 4 to 6 weeks.
During the first week, John participated in orientation along with three
other OT students and shadowed his supervisor, Sarah Hill. Sarah has 20
years of OT experience plus several specialty certifications. Sarah gave John
a schedule of when he was to arrive at 7 AM.
During their weekly supervision session of the second week, Sarah asked
John questions about the clinical conditions and functional challenges of the
clients seen and pressed him to identify long-term goals for one of the
clients. John had very superficial knowledge of the clinical conditions, and
when asked about this limitation, John reported that his academic program
did not go into depth on every condition. This surprised Sarah, as she was
knowledgeable about the academic program’s curriculum. John also stated
that he hadn’t thought about goals for the clients seen, as he thought Sarah
would let him know what they were. In addition, Sarah pointed out to John
that during the shadowing time, he heard John’s smartphone vibrate and
saw John check its screen. She reminded John that all smartphones are to be
off during work hours, but he can use it during his lunch break.
During the third week, John arrived late on 2 days, completely missing
morning rounds one day and arriving late to rounds on the second day. She
told Sarah that he could get the information missed from one of the other
students, and that, if necessary, he can make up the time at the end of the
day. He also asked if he really needed to attend rounds every morning, as
not much changed from day to day. He suggested that because students
have to be at the site at 7 AM twice a week, and on those days, each would
attend rounds, whichever student attended rounds can easily text or e-mail
the information to those not present. This would make the workday easier
for everyone. John added that his commute was close to an hour each way,
and a flexible schedule would be very helpful to everyone.
Sarah was troubled with John’s professionalism and devoted their next
supervision session to review what her concerns were. Sarah and John had
very different views on each of the behaviors:

Being Prepared
 Sarah expected students to come to fieldwork prepared, which
includes doing research on their own time in any area where they
have limited knowledge. They are expected to be ready to discuss
OT’s role in promoting functional performance and participation and
to examine how they might apply evidence-based practice. By not
putting in the time to learn, Sarah believes that her student is either
unmotivated or simply lazy.
John assumed it was his supervisor’s responsibility to provide him
with information about clinical conditions, be told by his supervisor
what he needed to do, and if he needed to do anything “extra,” he
would be given time during the workday to do it. After all, isn’t his
supervisor a teacher, and as such shouldn’t she be giving him the
knowledge he needs to have?

Electronic Devices
Sarah views smartphone use as not just a distraction to patient care
but also a demonstration of disrespect to those he needs to interact
with.
John believes he has the ability to multitask, that by keeping his
smartphone on vibrate, he is actually showing respect, and that he
needs to check it just in case something important is shared. In
addition, he does not wear a watch so this is how he knows the time.

Interprofessional Collaboration
Sarah believes in collaborative teamwork and that participating in
morning rounds not only keeps everyone up to date on any changes
or progress made by patients but also provides an opportunity to
engage with others around patient care. In addition, schedules and
their related responsibilities are to be adhered to and not ignored as
a matter of convenience.
John doesn’t understand why attendance is required because there
are more efficient ways of gathering information. He also doesn’t
understand why making up the time later in the day isn’t an option.

Patient Privacy
Finally, Sarah is very concerned that John would suggest texting
information about patients, as this can easily result in Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.
John views electronic communication as efficient and assures Sarah
that it will be shared only with students at the site.
 Questions
1. Are you able to relate to John’s perspective?
2. Are you able to relate to Sarah’s perspective?

What is the underlying issue portrayed in OT Story 30.1?

Individuals from two different generations perceive behaviors in
very different ways. These perceptions come from experiences
specific to their “generational culture.” Being from different
generational cultures is not an excuse to maintain behaviors and
expectations that are viewed by many as unprofessional, nor to
hold on to behaviors and expectations that might no longer be
appropriate. Although the supervisor in this case example is
concerned by what he sees as a combination of laziness and
unprofessional behaviors, the younger practitioner believes in
efficiency and flexibility while being dependent on his supervisor for
knowledge. Both are coming from their own generational context.
In practice settings, however, one must remember that the client’s
needs come first and that most likely, there are generational
differences between practitioner and client as well. Therefore, those
joining the workforce will succeed if they are aware of how they are
perceived and learn to demonstrate all aspects of professionalism
that will garner them respect from the multigenerational contexts.
Their supervisors will similarly have more satisfying relationships
with those they oversee if they, too, understand how to adapt their
supervisory styles in order to help the new practitioners adapt and
to not blame their supervisees for behaviors shaped by their culture.

Professionalism and Teamwork

Interprofessional models for practice are utilized across varied
healthcare settings and with all populations. These models may
include collaborative practice and professional networks with the
members of each having some degree of shared identity (Reeves et
al., 2018). Effective interprofessional teams are distinct from
collaborations and networks as members of interprofessional teams
share goals, are accountable to each other (Reeves et al., 2018),
respect each other’s expertise, and focus on their patient’s best
interest (Cruess et al., 2009). Interprofessional teams in particular
enhance client safety and care and are based on the premise that
no one person has all the skills and knowledge to meet the client’s
goals. As a result, competencies have been developed along with
healthcare academic programs’ accreditation standards to ensure
collaborative practice (Interprofessional Education Collaborative
[IPEC], 2016). Thus, an important feature of professionalism is
one’s ability to be an effective team member.
Effective teamwork is often linked with improved client outcomes
and improved client safety (Brock et al., 2013; Ndoro, 2014;
Zwarenstein et al., 2009), including outcomes in rehabilitation
settings (Sinclair et al., 2009). Failures related to the environment’s
culture and to interpersonal communication can result in treatment
errors (Deering et al., 2011). Although improving healthcare is a
direct result of improving communication and collaboration
(Zwarenstein et al., 2009), there research has not been done to
examine teamwork’s effect on lessening healthcare inequity (Carey
& Taylor, 2021).
Teams are an outgrowth of the knowledge that an individual who
functions alone is not as helpful to the client as a team that works
well together. The reasoning process, when done in a group, is
more effective than when done in isolation (Mercier & Sperber,
2011). This reduces the risk of ignoring information that does not fit
within one’s belief system and increases access to information from
others, which helps decision-making. Being a member of a team
does not automatically result in collaboration (Thistlethwaite, 2012),
however, and one must be aware that teams can be undermined by
power relationships (Baker et al., 2011). Facilitating
interprofessional teamwork in clinical sites is critical (Poston et al.,
2017), and receiving training in interprofessional teamwork during
one’s professional education is equally important if not required
(Anderson et al., 2016; AOTA, 2015; Boet et al., 2014; Brennan et
al., 2014; Brock et al., 2013; House et al., 2016; Ndoro, 2014).
Furthermore, interprofessional education must be competency-
based (IPEC, 2016), as it prepares future practitioners for
interprofessional teamwork.
Effective teams—whether they are two individuals such as an
occupational therapist and an OT assistant or a group of healthcare
professionals from varying disciplines—that work well are
characterized by communication, respecting and understanding
roles, trust and confidence, the ability to overcome adversity as well
as personal differences, and collective leadership (Bosch & Mansell,
2015; Nancarrow et al., 2013; Sims et al., 2015). These attributes
are developed through shared mental models (Manges et al., 2020),
group cohesion, and objective leadership, and can result in
increased job satisfaction (Kalisch et al., 2010). In addition, the
explicit importance of team meetings, the role of shared objectives
in conflict management, and the value of autonomy within the team
(Jones & Jones, 2011) are further examples of effective
interprofessional teams.
There are multiple compositions of healthcare teams, some of
which are comprised of only one discipline, and others that are
interprofessional. Practitioners can be members of different teams
simultaneously. Unidisciplinary teams are comprised of practitioners
of the same discipline and who function in the same role, while
intradisciplinary are comprised of practitioners of the same discipline
but with different levels of education (Columbia Center for Teaching
and Learning, n.d.). For effective client-centered care,
interprofessional teams, comprised of individuals from different
disciplines, often operate in order to maximize positive outcomes for
their clients. These teams include multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary,
and transdisciplinary (Figure 30.2). Each is composed of individuals
from various professional backgrounds, and each is focused on a
common client. It is helpful to consider these teams as a continuum
of interprofessional cooperation. Multidisciplinary teams emerged
first, with other forms of teams developing as team objectives
changed.
FIGURE 30.2 Interprofessional collaboration of healthcare
practitioners (HCP).

Although there are numerous definitions and names for

interprofessional teams, there is limited consensus on how each is
applied (Flores-Sandoval et al., 2021). For example, multidisciplinary
and interdisciplinary are often, inappropriately, used
interchangeably. There are however distinctions between them. The
names and definitions used in this chapter distinguish between the
different types of teams and are based on how the members
interact. The names and descriptions used in this chapter are
consistent with this book’s past editions (e.g., Falk-Kessler, 2018)
and reflect moderate consensus in the literature (Flores-Sandoval et
al., 2021).

Multidisciplinary Teams
Coordination of care is essential if a patient is to benefit from
multiple healthcare services provided by various healthcare
professionals (Zwarenstein et al., 2009). The multidisciplinary team,
like all interprofessional teams, is composed of individuals
representing professional disciplines that serve the client. In the
multidisciplinary team, each professional is responsible for
identifying and carrying out their own discipline-related evaluation
and intervention. Multidisciplinary teams generally have access to
each other’s written record, as each typically contributes to chart
notes, and so on. If they meet as a group, which is often the case,
they share information about their client’s progress relative to the
discipline-specific goals, and they may coordinate their efforts. For
example, they may arrange intervention sessions to be on the same
day. Multidisciplinary teams can also provide an opportunity for
members to learn from each other. The objective, however, is
coordination and cooperation, not necessarily to share goals with a
common outcome. Although the expectation is that knowledge of
the expertise of other team members will promote cooperation and
communication that ultimately benefits the client, each team
member functions in a parallel fashion and maintains professional
autonomy (Jessup, 2007).

Interdisciplinary Teams
The interdisciplinary team is distinct from the multidisciplinary team.
Although similarly composed of members representing and using
knowledge and skills of their respective discipline, the team
members identify goals and plan intervention collaboratively. They
also discuss with each other how their intervention plans will be
implemented. Although their skills may complement each other,
team members become interdependent as they work toward
improving health outcomes for their clients. It is common for
interdisciplinary teams to meet as a group with the client, the
client’s family, and so on. This type of team is further distinguished
from the multidisciplinary team in that some interventions may be
jointly carried out, and the client is often involved in the decision-
making process (Jessup, 2007).
The benefits of interdisciplinary teams are many (Jessup, 2007;
Zwarenstein et al., 2009). They are client-centered, giving clients a
role in their care, and team members share their knowledge, which
leads to respecting the roles and functions of each other. Because
team members share a great deal with each other about how they
implement intervention, a synergy develops in how different
practitioners in varied disciplines address common and
complementary goals. Intervention plans for clients are developed
holistically and cost-effectively. Job satisfaction is increased.
Ultimately, client care and outcomes are enhanced (see Box 30.1).

BOX 30.1 TEAMWORK IN THE TIME OF A

PANDEMIC
The importance of effective interdisciplinary teamwork has been critical
during the COVID-19 pandemic. To effectively deal with the ever-changing
understanding of the COVID-19 virus, intense communication and
coordination across disciplines were required so all presented needs could be
met. These included increasing bed capacity to care for very ill and highly
contagious patients; attention to workforce training in the context of
pandemics; changes in staffing patterns; and changes in interpersonal
interactions, including practitioner to client (Natale et al., 2020). It also
demanded prioritizing infection control in healthcare, corporate, and home
settings, which led to diminished social engagement, resulting in significant
consequences to physical and mental health (Berlinger et al., 2021). Federal
and state regulatory agencies responded to deal with some of these issues.
As an example, the increased use of telehealth required federal and state
regulatory agencies to ease limits, if only temporarily, on service provision. In
some instances, telehealth services proved to be effective even for “hands-
on” professions such as occupational therapy (Gately et al., 2020; Kessler et
al., 2021; Klamroth-Marganska et al., 2021; Maeir et al., 2021; Serwe et al.,
2017). Despite its increased use, telehealth must be prescribed ethically, with
the understanding that not all clients nor all medical conditions can benefit
(Chaet et al., 2017). Engaging in telehealth requires team communication
and coordination of services continue to be necessary (see Chapter 67).
The COVID-19 pandemic has also shined a light on how a crisis can
impact professionalism when economic and available resources came into
conflict with healthcare ethics. Although medical teams worked tirelessly to
care for the ill, they were also making decisions that would affect all roles
and the reallocation of treatment (Ćurković et al., 2020). The outcomes of
these teams’ decisions influence public trust.
 There are several potential problems that can also emerge in the
functioning of an interdisciplinary team. An overly assertive team
member can dominate the meetings, thereby pushing an agenda
that was not collaboratively agreed on. A silent or unassertive team
member can easily be ignored, with team members assuming the
silence means compliance. A hierarchy may develop or a particular
team member may assume the leadership simply because of their
profession. This can negatively affect decision-making (Jessup,
2007) and promote feelings of being undervalued and disrespected
(Baker et al., 2011). The important attributes of trust and mutual
respect are keys in ensuring effective teamwork.
Interdisciplinary teams are seen in many settings. In fact,
settings have designed specific models of interdisciplinary teams
that are deemed effective (Deering et al., 2011; Medlock et al.,
2011). Consider, as an example, a day hospital setting serving those
with major mental illnesses. An interdisciplinary team may decide
that for a particular client with schizophrenia, the goal is to have
him be able to live in a group home, participate in chores, and be
able to attend a sheltered workshop that prepares packages for
shipment. Team members also are aware that he can become
nonadherent with medication, has sensory processing issues, has
difficulty with following instructions and making decisions, and
complains about not seeing his brother often enough. In this team,
different professionals address the same objectives and goals
collaboratively but through their own profession’s lens. For example,
the psychiatrist and nurse monitor his medication, whereas the
occupational therapist is able to observe if any medication side
effects are interfering with function. The occupational therapist is
addressing sensory and cognitive impairment while having the
recreational therapist monitor changes in leisure function. The social
worker is addressing family issues, with the occupational therapist
and the nurse attending to activities of daily living (ADLs) issues
raised by the brother.

Transdisciplinary Teams
The transdisciplinary team is one that functions without discipline-
centered boundaries. Members in these types of teams appear to
have blurred roles because many of their role-related functions
become interchangeable. As distinguished from interdisciplinary
teams, the expertise related to discipline-specific tasks is shared
and results in the taking on of each other’s responsibilities (Cartmill
et al., 2011). This type of team is most efficient and may be cost-
effective because, in some examples, fewer professionals interact
with a specific client (King et al., 2009).
It has been suggested that there are three key elements for
successful and responsible transdisciplinary teamwork. The first is
an overall assessment conducted by one professional but observed
by all. This type of arena assessment allows each to provide
information based on their unique base of knowledge and skill. Next
is an ongoing interaction between team members so that each can
continuously contribute their knowledge to the plan of care. Perhaps
most critical is the third element, which is role release. This allows
interprofessional intervention to be carried out by one individual.
Ideally and responsibly, this should be done under the direction of
and continuous consultation from those responsible for what is
being implemented (King et al., 2009).
The transdisciplinary team can be highly effective if used with
the right population and in the right manner. A noncompetitive and
nonhierarchical environment is important in order to allow for
effective intervention. These teams are especially helpful in
situations where interprofessional intervention is required, yet it is
in the best interest of the client to have only one individual interact.
A very good example of effective transdisciplinary teamwork can be
seen in a report of a home-visiting program for infants in which the
family benefits from the expertise of many professionals but
interacts with only one (King et al., 2009). As described by these
authors, a home-visiting program for infants with developmental
disabilities is established, with the objectives of promoting child
development along a series of domains. Rather than overwhelm the
caregiver with various visiting professionals, one individual is
assigned to each family. Team members learn theories and
techniques from each other in order to provide service that spans
disciplinary boundaries. The team is responsible for continually
appraising and providing input to the professional who visits.
The transdisciplinary team approach is also useful in settings
that can benefit from a system-wide approach, in settings with
limited resources that do not have access to different professionals,
in remote settings where access is limited, or following a crisis or
natural disaster. The use of technology can support the functioning
of transdisciplinary teams, ensuring a high level of competency.
Paramount for the success of transdisciplinary teams are the
same elements identified for interdisciplinary teams: trust,
communication, and respect. A major concern of transdisciplinary
teamwork can arise when the “agent” for the team is not as skilled
or knowledgeable as the team members being represented,
resulting in diminished effectiveness of the intervention.
Furthermore, if an individual professional providing intervention
ceases to obtain ongoing input from fellow team members, the
client is at risk for adverse events.
Transdisciplinary approaches have additional ethical and legal
concerns. If, on a transdisciplinary team, members assume
responsibilities of other professionals, regulatory violations and
scope of practice concerns emerge. A team member should never
perform actions for which they have not been educated or approved
for under their state regulations. This is not the case when there is
overlap in assessment and intervention modalities or techniques.
Each team member has a responsibility to provide service within his
or her scope of practice and request the provision of direct service
from another team member when it is necessary to provide service
outside of one’s scope of practice.

Research Teams
Although much of this section has focused on interprofessional
teams in practice settings, there are two important arenas in which
interprofessional teams are critical for their success. The first that
warrants mention is the research team.
In medically related research, discipline-specific investigators
focusing primarily on basic science have carried out investigations.
In some circumstances, this is not only appropriate but also
necessary. However, having one discipline central to a study can
result in outcomes that isolate professions, perpetuate knowledge
gaps, and limit information advancement (Bindler et al., 2012). The
advantages of interprofessional research include being able to
better address the complex issues involved in research, allow for
innovative, including more technologically based, approaches
(Bindler et al., 2012), and translate results into effective
interventions that are functionally and clinically relevant. Like
patient-oriented teams, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and
transdisciplinary research teams function in distinct ways, with
research questions reflecting the nature of the team (Fawcett,
2013). The federal government has placed increased emphasis on
interprofessional collaborative research and has set up structures to
support the translation and application of basic research to practice-
related outcomes (Bindler et al., 2012), although barriers continue
to exist that impede translating interprofessional research into
clinical practice (Fletcher et al., 2017).

Healthcare Policy Teams

Another area that warrants mention is healthcare policy
development. Just as research and intervention address complex
needs, healthcare policy deals with issues that are also multifaceted
(refer to Box 30.1). From setting healthcare agendas to outlining
their implementation in order to improve health service delivery,
policymakers need to collaborate on teams to be effective. To
ensure this, an interprofessional approach to policy development,
just as with clinical care and with research, allows for access to
varied sources of information and promotes perspectives that
represent different areas of expertise. It has also been suggested
that interprofessional team-based learning opportunities facilitate
collaboration and enhances the development of effective healthcare
policy (Rider et al., 2008).

Scholarship: Presentations and

Publications
Two decades ago, Holm (2000), in her Eleanor Clarke Slagle
Lecture, called for occupational therapists to acquire evidence to
support OT services and to practice based on that evidence (see
Chapter 26).
Two of the many reasons to be an evidence-based practitioner
are competency and currency. As scientific knowledge continues to
amass in an ever-changing healthcare environment, practitioners
and educators alike need to embrace and be proficient in
interventions proven to be efficacious and cost-effective. Learning
from those with a proven scholarly record, such as individuals
whose work has appeared in peer-reviewed journals or who are
presenting research at conferences or workshops under
organizations and/or companies that have met requirements for
continuing education, such as AOTA’s Approved Provider of
Continuing Education, is important. The information learned must
be reliable, accurate, and evidence based. It is also incumbent on
researchers to address questions pertinent to the practice of OT so
that the services provided can be both efficacious and cost-
effective. Thus, it is the responsibility of all OT practitioners to
participate in learning opportunities based on the most recent
knowledge that can be applied to practice.
Presenting and publishing is part of the professional role and
provides another venue for sharing information (Table 30.1). When
one has an opportunity to present or to publish, it is similarly
important to consider the context in which one chooses to present
and publish. Again, presenting under the auspices of an approved
provider of continuing education enhances credibility.
 TABLE A Sample of Venues for
30.1
Disseminating Knowledge

Presentations Publications
Professional Consumer Non–peer-
Peer-Reviewed
Venues Venues Reviewed
Team Community Practice- Trade
meeting event oriented magazines
periodicalsa
In-service Consumer Journals Practice-
presentation organizatio oriented
n periodicalsa
Grand Book chaptersa Newsletters
rounds
Poster Websitesa News
session periodicals
Panel Book chaptersa
discussion
Platform Self-published
sessions books
Workshops Blogs
Courses Websitesa
a
These venues may or may not be peer reviewed.

Presentations take many forms. Within clinical settings,

presentations occur in team meetings, at grand rounds, and at in-
service trainings. Some of these settings may appear informal, but
presenters must remember that their style of presenting will reflect
their integrity and professionalism. In conference settings, a poster
session allows the presenter to discuss points of interest to those
who review the poster. A paper presentation, which can be
anywhere from 20 minutes to 2 hours, is a formal presentation to
an audience and typically includes audiovisual technology. Workshop
presentations, which are somewhat modeled after a classroom
setting, also include audiovisual technology and range from a half-
day to a 5-day event. Panel presentations consist of several experts
on a single topic in which brief presentations are made to facilitate
discussion with the audience.
Each of these presentation types can also be delivered on virtual
platforms. Online learning in academic settings has allowed for
increased access and flexibility for education, for example, through
massive open online courses (MOOCs; Dhawan, 2020). Providing a
digital environment for professional conferences has equally allowed
for more affordable and increased accessibility to knowledge.
However, presenting online has unique challenges that include
technical issues, environmental distractions, and effective
communication. It is important to understand the challenges
associated with presenting using this media (Rapanta et al., 2020).
Although each of these types of presentations allows for the
dissemination of information, it is important to be sure that the
manner of presenting is professional. There are many guidelines
available on how to present (e.g., Eggleston, n.d.). Guidelines
suggest that presenters should be articulate, focus on the question
at hand, and engage the audience, no matter how big or how small.
These guidelines also include paying attention to eye contact;
avoiding the use of filler words such as “um,” “you know,” and
“like”; and maintaining good posture.
Similarly, there are various types of publication, from traditional,
subscription-based journals to digital publications that might not
require a subscription. Each type targets different audiences, has
varying levels of review and rigor, and has varying levels of
perceived value. A publication’s value is typically based on the
review process used by the journal, along with the journal’s quality,
reputation, and impact factor. This applies to traditional and digital
publications. Digital publications, which are becoming more
prevalent, may be open access (OA) publishing venues, such as an
institutional OA repository where an author may upload work or
work in progress, without any review, and OA journals which may or
may not be peer-reviewed and often carry a fee charged to the
author (Rowley et al., 2017).
 Understanding which media an author publishes in is important
to both the writer and to the reader, as it may inform the content’s
trustworthiness. The peer-review process, valued in scholarly
literature, simply refers to a procedure in which a manuscript, once
submitted for publication, is reviewed by experts in the field who
provide feedback and contribute to the decision of whether the
manuscript meets the criteria for publication. Peer review provides a
layer of critical evaluation to the publishing process, is often a more
challenging route of publication for the writer, and gives the reader
a level of trust in the information (Nicholas et al., 2015). Peer-
reviewed articles are typically in scientific journals (Farrell et al.,
2017) and may or may not be reviewed anonymously (Nobarany &
Booth, 2017).
Non-peer review refers to manuscripts that are submitted or
invited to be published in books, periodicals, or trade magazines
and might be reviewed by an editor rather than go through a
longer, more critical process (Jacobs, 2009). Non–peer-reviewed
articles are in news or practice-oriented periodicals and trade
publications. Non-peer review also includes self-publication, such as
blogs and personal websites as well as self-published books. As
indicated earlier, publishing in peer-reviewed or non–peer-reviewed
media carries different perceived value as a result of the review
process. Finally, papers in OA journals, which speed up the time
between a paper’s acceptance to its publication, may or may not be
peer-reviewed.

Professionalism and Social

Media: Opportunities and
Pitfalls
Social media is a tool that enables individuals and organizations to
communicate efficiently and to a wide audience. Hospitals and
professional practices use social media to provide information
related to medical updates and health information to their patients
and the general public (Ficarra, 2011). Consumers use social media
sites as a way to assess the quality of their healthcare provider
(Rozenblum & Bates, 2013). Because misinformation and
disinformation appear on social media outlets, it is important for
healthcare providers to ensure that the information they post on
social media is factual and evidence-based. It is equally important
for consumers, who obtain as well as share information about
healthcare on social media, to only use credible sources (Kington et
al., 2021). And, if clients are included in social media posts, proper
procedures for informed consent must be followed (Bennett &
Vercler, 2018).
In addition, professionals have an obligation to understand that
their postings on any site can be viewed by unlimited numbers of
people without restriction. Once information is posted, it can no
longer be controlled, no matter what privacy settings are used.
Relationships and communication are often nurtured through
social networks (Bahk et al., 2010), yet behavior on these networks
has come under scrutiny. The prevailing concern revolves around
postings that include information (e.g., photographs, narratives)
about others, which may violate their right to privacy and
commitment to their professional environment. Indeed, attention is
being paid to how social media and other forms of electronic
communication are being used in a variety of academic and work
contexts (Ahmed et al., 2020; Gerlich et al., 2010).
Professionalism when using social media is important.
Professionalism in part stems from a contract between one’s
discipline and society, and therefore, how one behaves is a
reflection of professionalism. Even accessing social media sites
while at work can be unprofessional (Piscotty et al., 2016). Because
social media has such a widespread audience and that behavior on
social media sites can reflect negatively on one’s place of work and
on one’s profession, policies and guidelines need to be developed
and adhered to (Ventola, 2014).
Many have claimed that what they do on their own time is an
issue of individual rights and of privacy. Yet, by virtue of being on
an Internet site, posted information and photos can be publicly
viewed (Langenfeld et al., 2014), and posting information about a
client can potentially violate patient privacy (Hader & Brown, 2010).
Even posting information about perceived poor medical care related
to a family member, can have consequences (Brous & Olsen, 2017).
The Internet allows for efficient communication but also widens
the net for who receives the communication. As a result,
professionals have an obligation to understand that their postings
on any site can be viewed by unlimited numbers of individuals
without restriction. Once information is posted, it can no longer be
limited to its intended audience no matter what privacy settings are
used.
Using social media to seek answers to practice questions may
also constitute a breach of ethics. For example, if a student poses a
question related to course material to a professional audience, they
may unwittingly be sharing proprietary information while
circumventing their own need to develop problem-solving behaviors
(Newkirk-Turner et al., 2019). Social media users have also posted
disrespectful comments about colleagues, clients, and places of
work; photos and videos of work-related activities and people; and
photos and videos of themselves or their friends engaged in
compromising activities. Many of these types of postings have
resulted in a wide range of disciplinary actions (Brous & Olsen,
2017; Greysen et al., 2010; Langenfeld et al., 2014; Thompson et
al., 2008). In addition to potential violations of HIPAA and Family
and Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), legislative and
ethical concerns have been raised. “Friending” patients and clients
on Facebook, for example, may impact the therapeutic relationship
(Guseh et al., 2009). As stated earlier, inappropriate behaviors, even
if subjectively inappropriate, can negatively impact the professional
expectations held by the public.
Social media, however, can be an important tool for promoting
the profession of OT. Just as it can be used to enhance learning
opportunities at the college level (Gerlich et al., 2010), social media
has and can be used to share relevant information with peers and
to provide learning opportunities about health and wellness to the
public (Greysen et al., 2010; McNab, 2009). Positive uses of social
media have included using a blog to teach persons with multiple
sclerosis about energy conservation, teaching fall prevention
strategies to older adults, providing tips on identifying cognitive
impairment in daily activities, and identifying the beginning signs of
driving impairment. Using Facebook or Instagram to promote
professional practice, sharing videos on sites such as YouTube or
TikTok that demonstrate an assessment or intervention technique,
tweeting about opportunities for community participation on Twitter,
and connecting with professionals on chat boards to promote
evidence-based research collaboration on a specific topic are also
possible uses of social media.
When producing digital content, it is helpful to remember the
“dos and don’ts.” Table 30.2 provides a checklist for proper online
content and conduct.

TABLE Social Media and E-Mail Checklist

30.2
for the Professional

Y For Social Media Sites, Such as Facebook,

N
E Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter as well as
O
S Personal Websites, Blogs, E-mails, and Texts
Did you target the correct audience for your posts?
Is the information you posted factual and backed up by evidence?
Are you in compliance with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act) and/or FERPA (Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act) regulations?
Are you in compliance with your workplace’s policies?
Are your remarks (and/or status updates) respectful (i.e., Did you
avoid making comments that someone might find offensive or
hurtful?)?
Did you use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation in your
professional postings? Did you avoid using “text” abbreviations,
such as “u” or “r,” on sites not limited in character number?
 Y For Social Media Sites, Such as Facebook,
N
E Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter as well as
O
S Personal Websites, Blogs, E-mails, and Texts
Did you avoid posting photographs or videos of yourself or others
that can be considered improper, even if these photographs were
taken and posted in non–work-related venues (i.e., Would you
want your family, your professors, your boss, or your clients to see
these)?
If you posted a photo or video, does it comply with HIPAA, FERPA,
and/or additional workplace policies?
Did you send a communication to a colleague that is
grammatically and structurally correct?
Did you remember to sign your name on all e-mails so that the
recipient can identify you?
Did you remember that whatever you post will be accessible
forever, in spite of privacy assurances from websites?
Did you avoid overuse of punctuation marks, all capital letters,
and boldface in your content? These may cause the reader to
misinterpret your intent or make it difficult to read.
Does your content reflect the appropriate level of formality? For
example, did you avoid using the greeting “Hey” in a message to a
colleague?

Conclusion
The professional role carries with it a great deal of responsibility.
Professionals, whose responsibilities are to their clients, profession,
society, are ambassadors for their field. Whether one is at work,
with friends, or in the virtual world, how one is perceived as a
person may be a reflection of who one is as a professional. The
world of OT is an exciting one. Our science is growing, our practice
areas are expanding, and our presence is ubiquitous. As an OT
professional, you have an opportunity to not only participate in this
wonderful profession but also to contribute to its development.
Lippincott© Connect For additional resources on the subjects discussed in this
chapter, visit Lippincott Connect.

REFERENCES
Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education. (2018). Accreditation
Council for Occupational Therapy Education (ACOTE) standards and interpretive
guidelines. https://acoteonline.org/accreditation-explained/standards/
Ahmed, W., Jagsi, R., Gutheil, T. G., & Katz, M. S. (2020). Public disclosure on
social media of identifiable patient information by health professionals: Content
analysis of Twitter data. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9), Article
e19746. https://doi.org/10.2196/19746
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2015). Importance of
interprofessional education in occupational therapy curricula. American Journal
of Occupational Therapy, 69(Suppl. 3), 691341020p1–691341020p14.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.696S02
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2017b). Vision 2025. American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71, 7103420010p1.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2017.713002
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2020a). AOTA 2020 occupational
therapy code of ethics. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(Suppl.
3), 7413410005p1–7413410005p5. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.74S3006
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2020b). Fieldwork performance
evaluation (FWPE) for the occupational therapy assistant student (Rev. ed.).
https://www.aota.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/EducationCareers/Fieldwork/Fiel
dwork-Performance-Evaluation-Occupational-Therapy-Assistant-Student.pdf
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2020c). Fieldwork performance
evaluation (FWPE) for the occupational therapy student (Rev. ed.).
https://www.aota.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/EducationCareers/Fieldwork/Fiel
dwork-Performance-Evaluation-Occupational-Therapy-Student.pdf
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2020d). Level I fieldwork
competency evaluation for OT and OTA students.
https://www.aota.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/EducationCareers/Educators/Fie
ldwork/LevelI/Level-I-Fieldwork-Competency-Evaluation-for-ot-and-ota-
students.pdf
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2020e). Occupational therapy
practice framework: Domain and process—fourth edition. The American Journal
of Occupational Therapy, 74(Suppl. 2), 7412410010p1–7412410010p87.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.74S2001
Anderson, E., Smith, R., & Hammick, M. (2016). Evaluating an interprofessional
education curriculum: A theory-informed approach. Medical Teacher, 38(4),
 385–394. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1047756
Anselmo-Witzel, S., Orshan, S. A., Heitner, K. L., & Bachand, J. (2017). Are
generation Y nurses satisfied on the job? Understanding their lived experiences.
The Journal of Nursing Administration, 47(4), 232–237.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000470
Aurora, V., Wayne, D., Anderson, R., Didwania, A., & Humphrey, H. (2008).
Participation in and perceptions of unprofessional behaviors among incoming
internal medicine interns. JAMA, 300(10), 1132–1134.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.10.1132
Bahk, C. M., Sheil, A., Rohm, C. E., & Lin, F. (2010). Digital media dependency,
relational orientation and social networking among college students.
Communications of the IIMA, 10(3), 69–78.
https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/ciima/vol10/iss3/6/
Baker, L., Egan-Lee, E., Martimianakis, M. A., & Reeves, S. (2011). Relationships
of power: Implications for interprofessional education. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 25(2), 98–104.
https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2010.505350
Bennett, K. G., & Vercler, C. J. (2018). When is posting about patients on social
media unethical “Medutainment”? AMA Journal of Ethics, 20(4), 328–335.
https://doi.org/10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.4.ecas1-1804
Berlinger, N., Breznay, J. B., Dubler, N. N., Finger, H., Kirk, T. W., Mukherjee, D., &
Weingast, E. G. (2021). Vaccinated and still isolated: The ethics of
overprotecting nursing home residents.
https://www.thehastingscenter.org/vaccinated-and-still-isolated-the-ethics-of-
overprotecting-nursing-home-residents/
Berman, J. R., Aizer, J., Bass, A. R., Blanco, I., Davidson, A., Dwyer, E., Fields, T.
R., Huang, W.-T., Kang, J. S., Kerr, L. D., Krasnokutsky-Samuels, S., Lazaro, D.
M., Schwartzman-Morris, J. S., Paget, S. A., & Pillinger, M. H. (2016). Fellow use
of medical jargon correlates inversely with patient and observer perceptions of
professionalism: Results of a rheumatology OSCE (ROSCE) using challenging
patient scenarios. Clinical Rheumatology, 35(8), 2093–2099.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-015-3113-9
Bindler, B., Richardson, K., Daratha, D., & Wordell, D. (2012). Interdisciplinary
health science research collaboration: Strengths, challenges, and case example.
Applied Nursing Research, 25(2), 95–100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2010.06.004
Boet, S., Bould, M. D., Layat Burn, C., & Reeves, S. (2014). Twelve tips for a
successful interprofessional team-based high-fidelity simulation education
session. Medical Teacher, 36(10), 853–857.
https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.923558
Bosch, B., & Mansell, H. (2015). Interprofessional collaboration in health care:
Lessons to be learned from competitive sports. Canadian pharmacists journal :
 CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC, 148(4), 176–179.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1715163515588106
Brennan, C. W., Olds, D. M., Dolansky, M., Estrada, C. A., & Patrician, P. A. (2014).
Learning by doing: Observing an interprofessional process as an
interprofessional team. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 28(3), 249–251.
https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2013.839750
Brock, D., Abu-Rish, E., Chiu, C., Hammer, D., Wilson, S., Vorvick, L., Blondon, K.,
Schaad, D., Liner, D., & Zierler, B. (2013). Interprofessional education in team
communication: Working together to improve patient safety. BMJ Quality &
Safety, 22(5), 414–423. https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/22/5/414
Brous, E., & Olsen, D. (2017). Lessons learned from litigation. American Journal
of Nursing, 117(9), 50–54.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000524546.50943.9e.
Byrne, A., & Tanesini, A. (2015). Instilling new habits: Addressing implicit bias in
healthcare professionals. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and
Practice, 20(5), 1255–1262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9600-6
Campbell, S. M., Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Fuzzy but useful
constructs: Making sense of the differences between generations. Work, Aging
and Retirement, 3(2), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wax001
Carey, M. J., & Taylor, M. (2021). The impact of interprofessional practice models
on health service inequity: An integrative systematic review. Journal of Health
Organization and Management, 35(6). Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-04-2020-0165
Cartmill, C., Soklaridis, S., & Cassidy, J. D. (2011). Transdisciplinary teamwork:
The experience of clinicians at a functional restoration program. Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-010-
9247-3
Chaet, D., Clearfield, R., Sabin, J. E., & Skimming, K. (2017). Ethical practice in
telehealth and telemedicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 32(10),
1136–1140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4082-2
Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Glossary for healthcare team
models. https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/sl2/pdf/glossary.pdf
Cruess, R. L., & Cruess, S. R. (2009). Cognitive base of professionalism. In R. L.
Cruess, S. R. Cruess, & Y. Steinert (Eds.), Teaching medical professionalism (pp.
7–30). Cambridge University Press.
Cruess, R. L., & Cruess, S. R. (2020). Professionalism, communities of practice,
and medicine’s social contract. The Journal of the American Board of Family
Medicine, 33(Suppl.), S50–S56. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2020.S1.190417
Cruess, R. L., Cruess, S. R., & Steinert, Y. (2009). Core attributes of
professionalism. In R. L. Cruess, S. R. Cruess, & Y. Steinert (Eds.), Teaching
medical professionalism (pp. 285–286). Cambridge University Press.
Ćurković, M., Košec, A., & Ćurković, D. (2020). Medical professionalism in times of
COVID-19 pandemic: Is economic logic trumping medical ethics? Internal
 Emergency Medicine, 15(8), 1585–1586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-020-
02446-5
D’Agostino, F., Gerald, G., & Thrasher, J. (2021). Contemporary approaches to the
social contract. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
(Winter 2021 ed.).
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/contractarianism-
contemporary/
Deering, S. J., Johnston, L. C., & Colacchio, K. (2011). Multidisciplinary teamwork
and communication training. Seminars in Perinatology, 35(2), 89–96.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2011.01.009
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
Eggleston, S. (n.d.). Key steps to an effective presentation.
http://www.theegglestongroup.com/writing/keystep1.php
Ekmekci, P. E., & Arda, B. (2015). Enhancing John Rawls’s theory of justice to
cover health and social determinants of health. Acta Bioethica, 21(2), 227–236.
https://doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2015000200009
Falk-Kessler, J. (2018). Professionalism, communication & teamwork. In B. Schell
& G. Gillen (Eds.), Willard and Spackman’s occupational therapy (13th ed.).
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
Farrell, P. R., Magida Farrell, L., & Farrell, M. K. (2017). Ancient texts to PubMed:
A brief history of the peer-review process. Journal of Perinatology, 37(1), 13–
15. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.209
Fawcett, J. (2013). Thoughts about multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and
transdisciplinary research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 26(4), 376–379.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318413500408
Ficarra, B. (2011). Social media: Medical social networking—part 2.
http://healthin30.com/2011/03/social-media-medical-social-networking-part-2/
Fletcher, S., Whiting, C., Boaz, A., & Reeves, S. (2017). Exploring factors related
to the translation of collaborative research learning experiences into clinical
practice: Opportunities and tensions. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 31(4),
543–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1303464
Flores-Sandoval, C., Sibbald, S., Ryan, B.L., & Orange. J. B. (2021). Healthcare
teams and patient-related terminology: A review of concepts and uses.
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science, 35(1), 55–66
https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12843
Gately, M. E., Trudeau, S. A., & Moo, L. R. (2020). Feasibility of telehealth-
delivered home safety evaluations for caregivers of clients with dementia.
OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 40(1), 42–49.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1539449219859935
Gerlich, R. N., Browning, L., & Westermann, L. (2010). The social media affinity
scale: Implications for education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research,
 3(11), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v3i11.245
Glennon, T., & Van Oss, T. (2010). Identifying and promoting professional
behavior: Best practices for establishing, maintaining, and improving
professional behavior by occupational therapy practitioners. Occupational
Therapy Practice, 15(17), 13–16.
Greysen, S. R., Kind, T., & Chretien, K. C. (2010). Online professionalism and the
mirror of social media. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(11), 1227–
1229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1447-1
Guseh, J. S., II., Brendel, R., & Brendel, D. H. (2009). Medical professionalism in
the age of online social networking. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(9), 584–586.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.029231
Hader, A. L., & Brown, E. D. (2010). Patient privacy and social media. AANA
Journal, 78(4), 270–274. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/patient-
privacy-social-media/docview/749390142/se-2
Hammell, K. W. (2015). Quality of life, participation and occupational rights: A
capabilities perspective. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 62(2), 78–85.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12183
Hills, C., Ryan, S., Smith, D. R., Warren-Forward, H., Levett-Jones, T., & Lapkin, S.
(2016). Occupational therapy students’ technological skills: Are “generation Y”
ready for 21st century practice? Australian Occupational Therapy Journal,
63(6), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12308
Holm, M. B. (2000). The 2000 Eleanor Clarke Slagle lecture. Our mandate for the
new millennium: Evidence-based practice. American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 54(6), 575–585. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.54.6.575
Hordichuk, C. J., Robinson, A. J., & Sullivan, T. M. (2015). Conceptualising
professionalism in occupational therapy through a western lens. Australian
Occupational Therapy Journal, 62(3), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-
1630.12204
House, J. B., Sun, J. K., Sullivan, A., & Ross, P. (2016). Introduction to
interprofessional education using health professionals. Medical Education,
50(5), 579–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13021
Interprofessional Education Collaborative. (2016). Core competencies for
interprofessional collaborative practice: 2016 update. Author.
Jacobs, K. (2009). Professional presentations and publications. In E. B. Crepeau,
E. S. Cohn, & B. A. Schell (Eds.), Willard & Spackman’s occupational therapy
(11th ed., pp. 411–417). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Jessup, R. L. (2007). Interdisciplinary versus multidisciplinary care teams: Do we
understand the difference? Australian Health Review, 31(3), 330–331.
http://ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/login?url=
https://search.proquest.com/docview/231778493?accountid=10226
Johnston, S. (2006). See one, do one, teach one: Developing professionalism
across the generations. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 449, 186–
192. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000224033.23850.1c
Jones, A., & Jones, D. (2011). Improving teamwork, trust and safety: An
ethnographic study of an interprofessional initiative. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 25(3), 175–181.
https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2010.520248
Kalisch, B. J., Lee, H., & Rochman, M. (2010). Nursing staff teamwork and job
satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 938–947.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01153.x
Kessler, D., Anderson, N. D., & Dawson, D. R. (2021). Occupational performance
coaching for stroke survivors delivered via telerehabilitation using a single-case
experimental design. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 84(8). 488–496.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022620988471
King, G., Tucker, M., Desserud, S., & Shillington, M. (2009). The application of a
transdisciplinary model for early intervention services. Infants & Young
Children, 22(3), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0b013e3181abe1c3
Kington, R. S., Arnesen, S., Chou, W. S., Curry, S. J., Lazer, D., & Villarruel, A. M.
(2021). Identifying credible sources of health information in social media:
Principles and attributes. NAM Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.31478/202107a
Klamroth-Marganska, V., Gemperle, M., Ballmer, T., Grylka-Baeschlin, S., Pehlke-
Milde, J., & Gantschnig, B. E. (2021). Does therapy always need touch? A
cross-sectional study among Switzerland-based occupational therapists and
midwives regarding their experience with health care at a distance during the
COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1),
Article 578. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06527-9
Lake, P. (2009, April 17). Student discipline: The case against legalistic
approaches. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(32), A31, A32.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/student-discipline-the-case-against-legalistic-
approaches/
Langenfeld, S. J., Cook, G., Sudbeck, C., Luers, T., & Schenarts, P. J. (2014). An
assessment of unprofessional behavior among surgical residents on Facebook:
A warning of the dangers of social media. Journal of Surgical Education, 71(6),
e28–e32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.05.013
Lindheim, S. R., Nouri, P., Rabah, K. A., & Yaklic, J. L. (2016). Medical
professionalism and enculturation of the millennial physician: Meeting of the
minds. Fertility and Sterility, 106(7), 1615–1616.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.047
Lipscomb, V. (2010). Intergenerational issues in nursing: Learning from each
generation. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 14(3), 267–269.
https://doi.org/10.1188/10.CJON.267-269
Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review
of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 35(S1), S139–S157. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1913
Maeir, T., Nahum, M., Makranz, C., Hoba, F., Peretz, T., Nagary, S. N., Silberman,
N., & Gilboa, Y. (2021). The feasibility of a combined model of online
 interventions for adults with cancer-related cognitive impairment. British
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 84(7):430–440.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022620950993
Manges, K., Groves, P. S., Farag, A., Peterson, R., Harton, J., & Greyson, S. R.
(2020). A mixed methods study examining teamwork shared mental models of
interprofessional teams during hospital discharge. British Medical Journal
Quality & Safety, 29(6), 499–508.
https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/29/6/499
McNab, C. (2009). What social media offers to health professionals and citizens.
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 87(8), 566.
https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.09.066712
Medlock, A., McKee, E., Feinstein, J., Bell, S. H., & Tracy, C. S. (2011). Applying an
innovative model of interprofessional team practice: The view from
occupational therapy. Occupational Therapy Now, 13(3), 7–9.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/868514514?
accountid=10226&parentSessionId=YkDuBv7ePKfGDb%2Fk4E5IlhZnmdb37CBP
4q4e4ISYKG0%3D&pq-origsite=summon
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an
argumentative theory. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–111.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
Monrouxe, L., Rees, C. E., & Hu, W. (2011). Differences in medical students’
explicit discourses of professionalism: Acting, representing, becoming. Medical
Education, 45(6), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03878.x
Nancarrow, S.A., Booth, A., Arliss, S., Smith, T., Enderby, P., & Roots, A. (2013).
Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work. Human Resources for
Health, 11, Article 19. https://doi.org10.1186/1478-4491-11-19
Natale, J. E., Boehmer, J., Blumberg, D. A., Dimitriades, C., Hirose, S., Kair, L. A.,
Kirk, J. D., Mateev, S. N., McKnight, H., Plant, J., Tzimenatos, L. S., Wiedeman,
J. T., Witkowski, J., Underwood, M. A., & Lakshminrusimha, S. (2020).
Interprofessional/interdisciplinary teamwork during the early COVID-19
pandemic: experience from a children’s hospital within an academic health
center. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(5), 682–686,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1791809
Ndoro, S. (2014). Effective multidisciplinary working: The key to high-quality
care. British Journal of Nursing, 23(13), 724–727.
https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2014.23.13.724
Newkirk-Turner, B. L., Johnson, V. E., & Vaughan-Robinson, L. (2019). Using social
media for academic help is dishonest. The ASHA Leader, 24(5), 8–9.
https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FMP.24052019.8
Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R.,
Allard, S., & Levine, K. (2015). Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned
Publishing, 28(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150104
Nobarany, S., & Booth, K. S. (2017). Understanding and supporting anonymity
policies in peer review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 68(4), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23711
Ozkan, M., & Solmaz, B. (2015). The changing face of the employees—generation
Z and their perceptions of work (a study applied to university students).
Procedia Economics and Finance, 26(2015), 476–483.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00876-X
Piscotty, R., Martindell, E., & Karim, M. (2016). Nurses’ self-reported social media
and mobile device use in the work setting. Online Journal of Nursing
Informatics (OJNI), 20(1). http://www.himss.org/ojni
Poston, R., Haney, T., Kott, K., & Rutledge, C. (2017). Interprofessional team
performance, optimized. Nursing Management, 48(7), 36–43.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000520722.55679.7c
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online
university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher
presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 923–945.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y
Rawls, J. (1971). The main idea of the theory of justice. A theory of justice.
Harvard University Press
Reeves S., Xyrichis A., & Zwarenstein M. (2018). Teamwork, collaboration,
coordination, and networking: Why we need to distinguish between different
types of interprofessional practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 32(1), 1–
3. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1400150
Rider, E. A., Brashers, V. L., & Costanza, M. E. (2008). Using interprofessional
team-based learning to develop health care policy. Medical Education, 42(5),
519–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03078.x
Rowley, J., Johnson, F., Sbaffi, L., Frass, W., & Devine, E. (2017). Academics’
behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(5),
1201–1211. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23710
Rozenblum, R., & Bates, D. W. (2013). Patient-centred healthcare, social media
and the internet: The perfect storm? BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(3), 183–186.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001744
Serwe, K. M., Hersch, G. I., Pickens, N. D., & Pancheri, K. (2017). Caregiver
perceptions of a telehealth wellness program. American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 71(4), 7104350010p1–7104350010p5.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2017.025619
Sims, S., Hewitt, G., & Harris, R. (2015). Evidence of collaboration, pooling of
resources, learning and role blurring in interprofessional healthcare teams: A
realist synthesis. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 29(1), 20–25.
https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.939745
Sinclair, L. B., Lingard, L. A., & Mohabeer, R. N. (2009). What’s so great about
rehabilitation teams? An ethnographic study of interprofessional collaboration in
 a rehabilitation unit. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90(7),
1196–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.01.021
Stanley, M., Forwell, S., Hocking, C., Nayar, S., Rudman, D. L., Prodinger, B., Vera,
L. F., Townsend, E., Magalhães, L., Simaan, J., Reid, H., & Pols, V. (2020). A
pledge to mobilize against racism. Journal of Occupational Science, 27(3), 294–
295. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2020.1793446
Thistlethwaite, J. (2012). Interprofessional education: A review of context,
learning and the research agenda. Medical Education, 46(1), 58–70.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04143.x
Thompson, L. A., Dawson, K., Ferdig, R., Black, E. W., Boyer, J., Coutts, J., &
Black, N. P. (2008). The intersection of online social networking with medical
professionalism. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(7), 954–957.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0538-8
Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more
confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before. Free
Press.
Ventola, C. L. (2014). Social media and health care professionals: Benefits, risks,
and best practices. P & T: A Peer-reviewed Journal for Formulary Management,
39(7), 491–520. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4103576/
Ventriglio, A., & Bhugra, D. (2016). Age of entitlement and the young:
Implications for social psychiatry. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry,
62(2), 107–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764015602170
Wang, J., He, B., Miao, X., Huang, X., Lu, Y., & Chen, J. (2017). The reliability and
validity of a new professionalism assessment scale for young health care
workers. Medicine, 96(25), e7058.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007058
Wiedmer, T. (2015). Generations do differ: Best practices in leading traditionalists,
boomers, and generations X, Y, and Z. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 82, 51–58.
https://www.scinapse.io/papers/2338807891
Wynia, M. K., Papadakis, M. A., Sullivan, W. M., & Hafferty, F. W. (2014). More
than a list of values and desired behaviors: A foundational understanding of
medical professionalism. Academic Medicine, 89(5), 712–714.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000212
Youngstrom, M. (2002). The occupational therapy practice framework: The
evolution of our professional language. American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 56(6), 607–608. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.56.6.607
Yuen, H. K., Azuero, A., Lackey, K. W., Brown, N. S., & Shrestha, S. (2016).
Construct validity test of evaluation tool for professional behaviors of entry-level
occupational therapy students in the United States. Journal of Educational
Evaluation for Health Professions, 13, 22.
https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.22
Ziring, D., Danoff, D., Grosseman, S., Langer, D., Esposito, A., Jan, M. K.,
Rosenzweig, S., & Novack, D. (2015). How do medical schools identify and
 remediate professionalism lapses in medical students? A study of U.S. and
Canadian medical schools. Academic Medicine, 90(7), 913–920.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000737
Zwarenstein, M., Goldman, J., & Reeves, S. (2009). Interprofessional
collaboration: Effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice
and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Article
CD000072. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub2