Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Elder Abuse Multidisciplinary Teams

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Elder Abuse

Abstract

Multidisciplinary teams have a long history as an intervention model for addressing elder abuse. Their continued importance, expansion, and diversification across more than a half century reflect the increasing number of disciplines and service systems involved in complex case situations and the need for collaboration to enable effective problem resolution. This chapter examines elder abuse multidisciplinary teams (M-teams) with respect to their many aspects, from functions and types to leadership and member roles to case selection and review. From the existing research and practice literature, salient findings are identified and integrated to illuminate a model seen as both beneficial and challenging to those involved in its implementation. Evaluative research to date generally suggests that the M-teams remain more a promising practice than evidence-based approach. Still, commitment to the model is widespread and has resulted in many calls for public policy to increase M-teams and better support their operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Allen JV. Financial abuse of elders and dependent adults: the FAST (Financial Abuse Specialist Team) approach. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2000;12(2):85–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anetzberger GJ. An update on the nature and scope of elder abuse. Generations. 2012;36(3):12–20.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anetzberger GJ. The evolution of a multidisciplinary response to elder abuse. Marq Elder’s Advis. 2011;13(1):107–28.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anetzberger GJ, editor. The clinical management of elder abuse. Binghamton, NY: The Harworth Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anetzberger GJ, Dayton C, Miller CA, MeGreevey JF, Schimer M. Multidisciplinary teams in the clinical management of elder abuse. Clin Gerontol. 2005;28(1/2):157–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aziz SJ. Los Angeles county fiduciary abuse specialist team: a model for collaboration. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2000;12(2):79–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barry MC. Responsibility of the social welfare profession in providing guardianship and protective services. Paper presented at the Arden House Seminar on Protective Services for Older People, Harriman, NY; 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bernatavicz F. Improving protective services for older Americans: community role. Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine, Human Services Development Institute; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blenkner M, Bloom M, Nielson M, Weber R. Final report: protective services for older people. Cleveland, OH: The Benjamin Rose Institute; 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brandl B, Dyer CB, Heisler CJ, Otto JM, Stiegel LA, Thomas RW. Elder abuse detection and intervention: a collaborative approach. New York: Springer; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Breckman RS, Adelman RD. Strategies for helping victims of elder mistreatment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Breckman R, Callahan J, Solomon J. Elder abuse multidisciplinary teams: planning for the future. New York: New York City Elder Abuse Center, Brookdale Center for Healthy Aging, and The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Center for Elder Abuse Prevention at the Hebrew Home at Riverdale; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Burr JJ. Protective services for adults: a guide to exemplary practice in states providing protective services to adults in OHDS programs. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chapin RK, Sergeant JF, Landry ST, Koenig T, Leiste M, Reynolds K. Hoarding cases involving older adults: the transition from a private matter to the public sector. J Gerontol Soc Work. 2010;53:723–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Conley DM. Developing a comprehensive approach: the key for the future. In: Galbraith MW, editor. Elder abuse: perspectives on an emerging crisis. Kansas City, KS: Mid-America Congress on Aging; 1986. p. 177–88.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Connolly MT. Where elder abuse and the justice system collide: police power, parens patriae, and 12 recommendations. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2010;22(1/2):37–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Connolly MT, Brandl B, Breckman R. The elder justice roadmap: a stakeholder initiative to respond to an emerging health, justice, financial and social crisis. Washington DC: US Department of Justice and US Department of Health and Human Services; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Daly JM, Jogerst GJ. Multidisciplinary team legislative language associated with elder abuse investigations. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2014;26:44–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Decalmer P, Marriott A. Multidisciplinary assessment of clients and patients. In: Decalmer P, Glendenning F, editors. The mistreatment of elderly people. London: Sage Publications; 1993. p. 117–35.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dong X. Elder abuse: research, practice, and health policy. The 2012 GSA Maxwell Pollack Award Lecture. The Gerontologist. 2014;54(2):153–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dong X, Simon MA, Mosqueda L, Evans DA. The prevalence of elder self-neglect in a community-dwelling population: hoarding, hygiene, and environmental hazards. J Aging Health. 2012;24(3):507–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dyer C, Heisler C, Hill C, Kim L. Community approaches to elder abuse. Clin Geriatr Med. 2005;21(2):429–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dyer CB, Connolly MT, McFeeley P. The clinical and medical forensics of elder abuse and neglect. In: Bonnie RS, Wallace RB, editors. Elder mistreatment: abuse, neglect, and exploitation in an aging America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2003. p. 339–81.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dyer CB, Goins AM. The role of the interdisciplinary assessment in addressing self-neglect of the elderly. Generations. 2000;24(2):23–7.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dyer CB, Barth J, Portal B, Hyman DJ, Pavlik VN, Murphy K, Gleason MS. A case series of abused or neglected elders treated by an interdisciplinary geriatric team. J Elder Abuse Negl. 1999;10(3/4):131–9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Eckstein R, Lindsey E, editors. Seminar on protective services for older people. Washington, DC: National Council on the Aging; 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Erlingsson CL. Searching for elder abuse: a systematic review of database citations. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2007;19(3/4):59–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ernst JS, Smith CA. Assessment in adult protective services: do multidisciplinary teams make a difference? J Gerontol Soc Work. 2012;55(1):21–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Frost RO, Steketee G, Williams L. Hoarding: a community health problem. Health Soc Care Commun. 2000;8:229–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fulmer TT, O’Malley TA. Inadequate care of the elderly: a health care perspective on abuse and neglect. New York: Springer; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hall GH. Protective services for adults. In: Morris R, editor. Encyclopedia of social work, vol. 2. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers; 1971. p. 999–1007.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Horowitz G, Estes C. Protective services for the aged. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Huba GJ, Melchior LA, Philyaw ML, Northington KR. The archstone foundation elder abuse and neglect initiative: outcomes and lessons learned in three years from 2006 to 2008. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2010;22(3/4):231–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hwalek M, Williamson D, Stahl C. Community-based M-teams roles: a job analysis. J Elder Abuse Negl. 1991;3(3):45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Illinois Department on Aging. Multidisciplinary team member handbook. Springfield: Illinois Department on Aging; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jackson SL, Mulford CF. Re: the complexity of responding to elder abuse demands the use of multidisciplinary teams (National Council on Crime and Delinquency Blog). 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nccdglobal.org/blog/the-complexity-of-responding-to-elder-abuse-demands-the-use-of-multidisciplinary-teams.

  37. Jim Petro Attorney General, State of Ohio. Ohio elder abuse task force report. Columbus, OH: State of Ohio; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Johnson TF. Ethics and elder mistreatment: uniting protocol with practice. In: Johnson TF, editor. Elder mistreatment: ethical issues, dilemmas, and decisions. New York: The Haworth Press; 1995. p. 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Koenig TL, Leiste MR, Spano R, Chapin RK. Multidisciplinary team perspectives on older adult hoarding and mental illness. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2013;25:56–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lau EE. Inpatient geropsychiatry in the network of elder abuse services. In: Galbraith MW, editor. Elder abuse: perspectives on an emerging crisis. Kansas City, KS: Mid-America Congress on Aging; 1986. p. 65–80.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Levitt SJ, O’Neill RJ. A call for a functional multidisciplinary approach to intervention in cases of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation: one legal clinic’s experience. Elder Law J. 1997;5(1):195–212.

    Google Scholar 

  42. McNamee C, Mulford C. Innovations assessment of the Elder Abuse Forensic Center of Orange County, California. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Malks B, Buckmaster J, Cunningham L. Combating elder financial abuse—a multi-disciplinary approach to a growing problem. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2003;15(3/4):55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mixson P, Chelucci K, Heisler C, Overman W, Sripada P, Yates P. The case of Mrs. M.—a multidisciplinary team staffing. J Elder Abuse Negl. 1991;3(4):41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. National Center on Elder Abuse. Frequently asked questions. 2015a. Retrieved on April 6, 2015 from http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/faq/index.aspx.

  46. National Center on Elder Abuse. Local coalitions: list of more than 100 local elder justice coalitions in the United States. 2015b. Retrieved on July 15, 2015 from http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/Stop_Abuse/Teams/Local/index.aspx.

  47. National Center on Elder Abuse. Bibliographics: multidisciplinary and collaborative approaches in responding to elder abuse (Electronic listserve message). 2006. Retrieved from http://www.elderabusecenter.org/default.cfm?p=CANE_MulitdisciplinaryAndCollaborativeApproaches.cfm.

  48. National Research Council. Elder mistreatment: abuse, neglect, and exploitation in an aging America. In: Bonnie RJ, Wallace RB, editors. Panel to review risk and prevalence of elder abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Navarro AE, Gassoumis ZD, Wilber KH. Holding abusers accountable: an elder abuse forensic center increases criminal prosecution of financial exploitation. The Gerontologist. 2013;53(2):303–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Navarro AE, Wilber KH, Yonashiro J, Homeier DC. Do we really need another meeting? Lessons from the Los Angeles County Elder Abuse Forensic Center. The Gerontologist. 2010;50(5):702–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nerenberg L. Elder abuse prevention: emerging trends and promising practices. New York: Springer; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Nerenberg L. Communities respond to elder abuse. J Gerontol Soc Work. 2006;46(3/4):5–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nerenberg L. Multidisciplinary elder abuse prevention teams: a new generation. NCEA Newslett. 2003;5(12):4.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Nerenberg L. A new generation of multidisciplinary teams. Nexus, 2001; 6.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Nerenberg L. Developing a service response to elder abuse. Generations. 2000;24(2):86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Nerenberg L. Building partnerships: a guide to developing coalitions, interagency agreements and teams in the field of elder abuse. Washington, DC: National Center on Elder Abuse; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Nerenberg L. The San Francisco Consortium Multidisciplinary Team: another perspective. J Elder Abuse Negl. 1991;3(3):66–71.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nichol MB, Wu H, Gassoumis ZD, Yonashiro-Cho J, Wilber KH. Access cost effectiveness of the multidisciplinary approach to elder abuse: economic evaluation of elder abuse forensic center model. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Chicago; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ohio Summit on Aging. Presentation materials. Columbus, OH: Supreme Court of Ohio; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  60. O’Neill V. Protecting older people. Public Welf. 1965;23(2):119–27.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Parkins SM. Hospital response to elder abuse: the adult protection team. In: Baumhover LA, Beall SC, editors. Abuse, neglect, and exploitation of older persons: strategies for assessment and intervention. Baltimore: Health Professions Press; 1996. p. 163–83.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Patronek GJ, Loar L, Nathanson JN. Animal hoarding: structuring interdisciplinary responses to help people, animals and communities at risk. Boston, MA: Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Pedrick-Cornell C, Gelles R. Elder abuse: the status of current knowledge. Fam Relat. 1982;31(3):457–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Pillemer K, Connolly MT, Breckman R, Spreng N, Lachs MS. Elder mistreatment: priorities for consideration by the White House Conference on Aging. The Gerontologist. 2015;55(2):320–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Pillemer K, Breckman R, Sweeney CD, Brownell P, Fulmer T, Berman J, Lachs MS. Practitioners’ views on elder mistreatment research priorities: recommendations from a research-to-practice consensus conference. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2011;23(2):115–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Ploeg J, Fear J, Hutchinson B, MacMillan H, Bolan G. A systematic review of interventions for elder abuse. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2009;21(3):187–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Primetica B, Bukach A, Bass D. Evaluation of the Cuyahoga County adult protective services interdisciplinary team: final report. Cleveland, OH: The Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Pyle E. State’s $10 M set-aside goes to programs to protect elderly from abuse. The Plain Dealer. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ramsey-Klawsnik H, Heisler C. Polyvictimization in later life. Victim Elder Disabl. 2014;17(1):3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Regan JJ, Springer G. Protective services for the elderly: a working paper. Prepared for the Special Committee on Aging, US Senate. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Schimer MR, Anetzberger GJ. Examining the gray zones in guardianship and involuntary protective services laws. J Elder Abuse Negl. 1999;10(3/4):19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Schneider DC, Mosqueda L, Falk E, Huba GJ. Elder abuse forensic centers. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2010;22(3/4):255–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Sekora D. The Montana adult protective service teams: a rural perspective. J Elder Abuse Negl. 1991;3(3):62–6.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Slivinske LR, Slivinske JD, Causey LA, Wyant KA. Evaluating the effectiveness of the Trumbull Advocacy and Protective Network: a formative evaluation. J Appl Gerontol. 2011;30(2):254–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Snowdon J, Shah A, Halliday G. Sever domestic squalor: a review. Int Psychogeriatr. 2007;19(1):37–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Spinale R. Adams County community adult protection multidisciplinary team. Victim Elder Disabl. 2005; p. 51, 62.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Steketee G, Frost RO, Kim H-J. Hoarding by older people. Health Soc Work. 2001;26(3):176–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Stiegel LA. Elder abuse fatality review teams: a replication manual. Washington, DC: American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Stiegel LA, Klem E. Multidisciplinary teams authorizations or mandates: provisions and citations in adult protective services laws, by state. Washington, DC: American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Teaster PB. The use of evidence-based practices for elder abuse programs. Washington, DC: National Center on Elder Abuse; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Teaster PB, Nerenberg L. A national look at elder abuse multidisciplinary teams: report for the National Committee for the prevention of elder abuse, partner in the National Center on elder abuse. Washington, DC: National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Teaster PB, Nerenberg L, Stansbury KL. A national look at elder abuse multidisciplinary teams. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2003;15(3/4):91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Twomey MS, Jackson G, Li H, Marino T, Melchior LA, Randolph JF, Wysong J. The successes and challenges of seven multidisciplinary teams. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2010;22(3/4):291–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. White House Conference on Aging. Elder justice. 2015. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouseconferenceonaging.gov/blog/policy/post/elder-justice-policy-brief.

  85. Wiglesworth A, Mosqueda L, Burnight K, Younglove T, Jeske D. Findings from an elder abuse forensic center. The Gerontologist. 2006;46(2):277–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services. Elder abuse interdisciplinary team manual. Madison: Author; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Wolf RS. Elders as victims of crime, abuse, neglect, and exploitation. In: Rothman MB, Dunlop BD, Entzel P, editors. Elders, crime, and the criminal justice system. New York: Springer; 2000. p. 19–42.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Wolf RS, Pillemer K. What’s new in elder abuse programming? Four bright ideas. The Gerontologist. 1994;34(1):126–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Yonashiro-Cho JM, Gassoumis ZD, Wilber K. Conservatorship characteristics among forensic center and adult protective services clients. Poster presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Washington, DC; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 1105 Hillrock Drive, 44121, South Euclid, OH, USA

    Georgia J. Anetzberger

Authors
  1. Georgia J. Anetzberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georgia J. Anetzberger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Rush Institute for Healthy Aging, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    XinQi Dong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Anetzberger, G.J. (2017). Elder Abuse Multidisciplinary Teams. In: Dong, X. (eds) Elder Abuse. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47504-2_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47504-2_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47502-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47504-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation