Search results

Team formulation, used to understand patient problems and plan care, is a growing practice in adult mental health and learning disability services. The purpose of this paper is to explore definitions applied to team formulation (as distinct to therapy formulation), its underpinning theories, and the inter-relationship between the team and the process of formulation.

A database search (main search term of team formulation) of peer-reviewed studies was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A main and second reviewer conducted quality appraisals and thematic analysis. Data were analysed by convergent qualitative synthesis design using thematic analysis to transform evidence from quantitative and qualitative studies into qualitative findings.

Initial searching produced 4,532 papers, 10 of which were eligible for inclusion. Team formulation has no distinct definition. Theories underpinning the practice of therapy formulation emanating from general psychological theory underpin team formulation. Seven studies applied psychological theories to the examination of team formulation. No studies examined the impact of the team on the formulation. Six themes were generated regarding the impact of team formulation on the team; “increased knowledge and understanding”, “altered perceptions, leading to altered relationships, feelings and behaviours”, “space to reflect”, “useful when stuck or challenged”, “perceived increase in effectiveness” and “improved team working”.

Limited evidence and variable quality compromised the availability of review evidence.

This is the first review to examine team formulation through the context of the team. The authors argue that a conceptual framework to encompass team inputs, processes and outputs in team formulation practice should guide future research.

The SECURE STAIRS framework has promoted young person involvement as a key feature of innovative service provision. In the North East of England, Secure Children’s Homes (SCHs) have pioneered young person involvement in team formulation. Young people have also led on the development of formulation materials through a young person involvement project. Young people’s attendance at team formulation meetings has become embedded. These service developments have also begun to expand across broader SCHs, Secure Training Centres (STCs) and Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) and reflect the national impact of such pioneering developments. There is a notable lack of research examining the impact of young person involvement in formulation. The purpose of this study is to elucidate this area.

Between April and August 2019, there were 86 staff attendances at formulation meetings where young people were present across two SCHs in the North East of England.

Paired samples t-tests indicated staff-reported significant post-formulation improvements across all domains measured including knowledge [t(85) = 11.38, p < 0.001]; confidence working with the young person [t(85) = 5.87, p < 0.001]; motivation [t(85) = 3.58, p < 0.001]; understanding [t(85) = 9.03, p < 0.001]; and satisfaction with the treatment plan [t(85) = 8.63, p < 0.001].

Implications of findings are discussed and further developments outlined.

Young people attending team formulation is a new and evolving area, and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no existing research evaluating this area. The current findings suggest that staff knowledge, motivation, confidence and satisfaction with the treatment plan is improved following attendance at team formulation where the young person is present and actively participating. Young people’s participation and involvement is central to planning, developing and progressing meaningful provision within children and young people secure provision.

Involving children and young people in decision-making, service development and evaluation are also key components of ensuring the voice of young people is central in our minds. It also supports empowering the young people we work with. Young people and their journey should always be at the heart of what we do.

Young people attending team formulation is a new and evolving area, and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no existing research evaluating this area. This is the first study of its type evaluating formulation directions within the SECURE STAIRS framework.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of psychological case formulation meetings for staff in a secure forensic learning disability and autism service.

In total, 89 of the attendees completed a questionnaire prior to the formulation meeting and then another questionnaire following attendance at a formulation meeting.

The results indicate that staff found these to be a helpful, informative and a positive experience professionally and personally. The results suggest that the formulation meetings developed staffs’ psychological understanding about the patient and their problems, helped to increase their empathy towards the patient, increased consistency in the teams’ views, and that the staff felt listened to.

Psychological formulation meetings are established in the current service, and therefore this may be a contributing to factor to the lack of significant change found in some of the items. Therefore, it would be beneficial for future services to complete a service evaluation at a much earlier point of implementation, as this may impact the level of significance.

The findings of this service evaluation suggest that formulation is a beneficial and useful tool for teams and would be a helpful tool for psychologists to use in the clinical work with teams.

Despite the popularity of team formulation, there is a lack of knowledge about workable implementation in practice. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to characterise team formulation, based upon examples from practice; and second, to identify factors perceived to support or obstruct workable implementation in practice.

An online survey recruited UK Clinical Psychologists (n=49) with experience in team formulation from a range of work contexts. Examples of team formulation in practice were analysed using both deductive and inductive framework analysis.

Four novel types of team formulation with different functions and forms are described: case review, formulating behaviour experienced as challenging, formulating the staff-service user relationship and formulating with the service-user perspective. A number of factors perceived to support and obstruct team formulation were identified including team distress, facilitating change, managing difference and informing practice. These were common across team formulation types.

The team formulation types identified could be used to standardise team formulation practice. Several common factors, including managing team distress, were identified as aiding workable implementation across team formulation types. Future research should investigate the key processes and links to outcomes of team formulation in practice.

This paper presents two original, practice-based and practice-informing frameworks: describing, first, novel forms and functions of team formulation and, second, the factors supporting and obstructing facilitation in practice. This paper is the first to highlight the common factors that seem to facilitate workable implementation of team formulation in practice.

Following from the cutting-edge work of Stephen Wolfram in A New Kind of Science (2002), in this chapter we propose “a new kind of OB” (organizational behavior) based on the varient approach to theory building and testing. In particular, we offer four simple, yet comprehensive theories to account for individual behavior, interpersonal relationships, group dynamics, and collectivized processes in organizations. In each case, two constructs, their association, and the levels of analysis of their operation are proposed. While the four theories proposed here are simple notions, they can explain a variety of complex phenomena and behavior in organizations.

As operational environments become increasingly fluid, organizations are turning to teams as a proven performance arrangement to structure complex work. Teams are ubiquitous in modern organizations because they can be used to create synergies, streamline workflow, deliver innovative services, satisfy incumbent needs, maximize the benefits of technology connecting distributed employees, and seize market opportunities in a global village. Teams are also increasingly used because coordinating the “…activities of individuals in large organizations is like building a sand castle using single grains of sand” (West, Borrill, & Unsworth, 1998, p. 6).

Successful organizations manage to change their strategy constantly in line with the changes in their competitive environment by using a dynamic approach to strategy formulation and implementation. Demonstrates the way in which such an approach can be developed, using the experiences of Hewlett‐Packard.

The purpose of this paper is to review the evidence base for the use of risk formulation in forensic practice settings.

Systematic literature review principles were adopted to identify literature exploring risk formulation in forensic practice settings in relation to offending behaviour.

Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach, and commonalities were observed across some of the studies in terms of definitions, outcomes, and implementation, of risk formulation; however, the findings of the review did not provide a definitive account of risk formulation practice in forensic settings. This is due to the narrow scope of the included studies, the small yet diverse samples, the heterogeneity in research aims and the methodological weaknesses apparent within the included studies.

Further research is needed to understand the application and outcomes of risk formulation in forensic practice settings.

Practitioners should be clear about how they are defining, implementing and assessing the outcomes of risk formulation, alongside being mindful of the evidence base when utilising forensic risk formulation in practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to focus solely on the evidence base for forensic risk formulation in practice.

For many of the current leadership theories, models, and approaches, the answer to the question posed in the title, “Is leadership more than ‘I like my boss’?,” is “no,” as there appears to be a hierarchy of leadership concepts with Liking of the leader as the primary dimension or general factor foundation. There are then secondary dimensions or specific sub-factors of liking of Relationship Leadership and Task Leadership; and subsequently, tertiary dimensions or actual sub-sub-factors that comprise the numerous leadership views as well as their operationalizations (e.g., via surveys). There are, however, some leadership views that go beyond simply liking of the leader and liking of relationship leadership and task leadership. For these, which involve explicit levels of analysis formulations, often beyond the leader, or are multi-level in nature, the answer to the title question is “yes.” We clarify and discuss these various “no” and “yes” leadership views and implications of our work for future research and personnel and human resources management practice.