Abstract

Purpose: Despite the popularity of team formulation, there is a lack of knowledge about workable implementation in practice. The purpose of this paper is to: (1) characterise team formulation, based upon examples from practice; and (2) identify factors perceived to support or obstruct workable implementation in practice.

Design/Methodology: 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 Framework Analysis.

Findings: 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.

Practical Implications: 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.

Originality/value: This paper presents two original, practice-based and practice-informing frameworks: describing (1) novel forms and functions of team-formulation and (2) 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.