Elder Abuse pp 417-432 | Cite as

Elder Abuse Multidisciplinary Teams

  • Georgia J. AnetzbergerEmail author


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.


Elder abuse collaborations Multidisciplinary teams Financial abuse specialist teams Elder abuse forensic centers Adult protective teams 


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anetzberger GJ. An update on the nature and scope of elder abuse. Generations. 2012;36(3):12–20.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anetzberger GJ. The evolution of a multidisciplinary response to elder abuse. Marq Elder’s Advis. 2011;13(1):107–28.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anetzberger GJ, editor. The clinical management of elder abuse. Binghamton, NY: The Harworth Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aziz SJ. Los Angeles county fiduciary abuse specialist team: a model for collaboration. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2000;12(2):79–83.Google Scholar
  7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 11.
    Breckman RS, Adelman RD. Strategies for helping victims of elder mistreatment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 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. 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. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 18.
    Daly JM, Jogerst GJ. Multidisciplinary team legislative language associated with elder abuse investigations. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2014;26:44–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 20.
    Dong X. Elder abuse: research, practice, and health policy. The 2012 GSA Maxwell Pollack Award Lecture. The Gerontologist. 2014;54(2):153–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dyer C, Heisler C, Hill C, Kim L. Community approaches to elder abuse. Clin Geriatr Med. 2005;21(2):429–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 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. 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. 26.
    Eckstein R, Lindsey E, editors. Seminar on protective services for older people. Washington, DC: National Council on the Aging; 1963.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Erlingsson CL. Searching for elder abuse: a systematic review of database citations. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2007;19(3/4):59–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frost RO, Steketee G, Williams L. Hoarding: a community health problem. Health Soc Care Commun. 2000;8:229–34.Google Scholar
  30. 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. 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. 32.
    Horowitz G, Estes C. Protective services for the aged. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1971.Google Scholar
  33. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hwalek M, Williamson D, Stahl C. Community-based M-teams roles: a job analysis. J Elder Abuse Negl. 1991;3(3):45–62.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Illinois Department on Aging. Multidisciplinary team member handbook. Springfield: Illinois Department on Aging; 2006.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 37.
    Jim Petro Attorney General, State of Ohio. Ohio elder abuse task force report. Columbus, OH: State of Ohio; 2005.Google Scholar
  38. 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. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. 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. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    National Center on Elder Abuse. Frequently asked questions. 2015a. Retrieved on April 6, 2015 from
  46. 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
  47. 47.
    National Center on Elder Abuse. Bibliographics: multidisciplinary and collaborative approaches in responding to elder abuse (Electronic listserve message). 2006. Retrieved from
  48. 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. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nerenberg L. Elder abuse prevention: emerging trends and promising practices. New York: Springer; 2008.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nerenberg L. Communities respond to elder abuse. J Gerontol Soc Work. 2006;46(3/4):5–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nerenberg L. Multidisciplinary elder abuse prevention teams: a new generation. NCEA Newslett. 2003;5(12):4.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nerenberg L. A new generation of multidisciplinary teams. Nexus, 2001; 6.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nerenberg L. Developing a service response to elder abuse. Generations. 2000;24(2):86–92.Google Scholar
  56. 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. 57.
    Nerenberg L. The San Francisco Consortium Multidisciplinary Team: another perspective. J Elder Abuse Negl. 1991;3(3):66–71.Google Scholar
  58. 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. 59.
    Ohio Summit on Aging. Presentation materials. Columbus, OH: Supreme Court of Ohio; 2010.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    O’Neill V. Protecting older people. Public Welf. 1965;23(2):119–27.Google Scholar
  61. 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. 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. 63.
    Pedrick-Cornell C, Gelles R. Elder abuse: the status of current knowledge. Fam Relat. 1982;31(3):457–65.Google Scholar
  64. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. 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. 68.
    Pyle E. State’s $10 M set-aside goes to programs to protect elderly from abuse. The Plain Dealer. 2015.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ramsey-Klawsnik H, Heisler C. Polyvictimization in later life. Victim Elder Disabl. 2014;17(1):3–6.Google Scholar
  70. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schneider DC, Mosqueda L, Falk E, Huba GJ. Elder abuse forensic centers. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2010;22(3/4):255–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sekora D. The Montana adult protective service teams: a rural perspective. J Elder Abuse Negl. 1991;3(3):62–6.Google Scholar
  74. 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.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Snowdon J, Shah A, Halliday G. Sever domestic squalor: a review. Int Psychogeriatr. 2007;19(1):37–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Spinale R. Adams County community adult protection multidisciplinary team. Victim Elder Disabl. 2005; p. 51, 62.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Steketee G, Frost RO, Kim H-J. Hoarding by older people. Health Soc Work. 2001;26(3):176–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 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. 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. 80.
    Teaster PB. The use of evidence-based practices for elder abuse programs. Washington, DC: National Center on Elder Abuse; 2011.Google Scholar
  81. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  83. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    White House Conference on Aging. Elder justice. 2015. Retrieved from
  85. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services. Elder abuse interdisciplinary team manual. Madison: Author; 2006.Google Scholar
  87. 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. 88.
    Wolf RS, Pillemer K. What’s new in elder abuse programming? Four bright ideas. The Gerontologist. 1994;34(1):126–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MedicineCase Western Reserve UniversitySouth EuclidUSA

Personalised recommendations