A team approach to applying the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Rehabilitation set in clinical evaluation.

The work was done only in a Chinese rehabilitation context, and staffing differences may change which profession should assess each category. The study developed a proposed assignment through expert consensus; it did not test whether team evaluation is accurate, efficient or better than single-rater evaluation. The expert panel combined discussion with only two Delphi rounds, and the authors note that a third round might have revealed deviation from consensus. Speech therapists, psychotherapists and social workers were excluded because local institutions did not employ them across the full set of professional categories, so this may not apply elsewhere. Respondents were experienced professionals, not patients, so the result describes professional role assumptions rather than patient outcomes.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Do not read this as proof that the team approach improves evaluation accuracy or efficiency. The study only produced expert consensus assignments, and the authors state that validity compared with single-rater evaluation still needs research.