The SLP’s guide to collaborative goal setting with OT and PT teams

Collaborative goal setting helps speech pathologists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists work towards the same meaningful outcomes. Rather than creating separate lists of communication, sensory, motor and participation targets, the team can identify how each discipline contributes to a child’s daily life.

In Australia, this approach is particularly useful across NDIS-funded supports, school-based services, community health settings and private practice. A child may see an SLP in Melbourne, an OT through a local clinic in Brisbane and a physiotherapist by telehealth while attending a mainstream school in regional New South Wales. Shared priorities keep care connected across those settings.

The strongest goals are practical, observable and relevant to the child and family. They account for communication access, physical abilities, regulation, motor planning, independence and the routines that matter at home, preschool and school. They also make it easier for professionals to explain their roles without creating duplicated therapy.

Begin with participation rather than discipline targets

A collaborative meeting should start with what the child needs or wants to do, not with a list of therapy activities. “Improve fine motor skills” and “increase expressive language” may be clinically appropriate, but they do not yet show how the child will participate more successfully.

Ask what happens during everyday routines. Is the child unable to tell an adult they need help at school? Do they avoid playground games because moving between equipment is difficult? Are mealtimes affected by posture, sensory responses or limited communication? Does the family want the child to join cousins at the park, manage a school bag or take part in a local swimming lesson?

These functional examples become shared outcomes. The SLP may address requesting, commenting or social problem-solving, while the OT supports regulation and task organisation and the PT addresses balance, endurance or mobility. The family experiences one meaningful change rather than three unrelated programmes.

Create a shared picture of strengths and barriers

Before writing goals, each professional should contribute a concise summary of the child’s strengths, needs and current supports. This may include assessment results, observations, family reports, teacher feedback and information from support workers. A shared formulation reduces the risk of one clinician interpreting behaviour without understanding the motor, sensory or communication factors involved.

Use plain language when discussing barriers. A child who leaves group time may have difficulty understanding instructions, maintaining a stable sitting position, coping with noise or communicating that they need a break. Several factors can exist at once. Collaborative reasoning helps the team test possible explanations rather than assuming the behaviour belongs to one discipline.

The team should also identify what is already working. A visual schedule, stable seating, a predictable transition phrase or a movement break may be effective supports. Recording these strategies prevents unnecessary changes and gives educators and families a practical starting point.

Clarify professional roles without working in silos

Shared goals do not mean that every clinician delivers the same intervention. They mean each discipline understands its contribution and reinforces compatible strategies. The SLP may design a communication system, teach language targets and coach communication partners. The OT may adapt materials, support sensory regulation and build independence in daily tasks. The PT may target strength, postural control, transfers and safe movement.

For example, a goal about joining a classroom art activity could include several coordinated actions. The PT might recommend seating that supports stability, the OT could adapt scissors or the workspace, and the SLP might teach the language needed to request materials, refuse assistance or comment on the activity.

Be specific about boundaries and handover points. A speech pathologist should not prescribe a seating system outside their expertise, just as an OT or PT should not independently alter an augmentative and alternative communication system without consulting the SLP. Clear role descriptions protect the child and promote respectful teamwork.

Include the child and family in decision-making

Families bring knowledge that cannot be gained from a single assessment session. They understand the child’s communication style, cultural priorities, routines, fatigue patterns and preferred activities. In Australia, family schedules may involve school drop-off, long commutes, shift work, siblings’ sport and appointments across several providers. Goals need to fit real life rather than assume unlimited time for home practice.

Use collaborative language and offer choices about priorities. A family might value independent dressing, joining conversations at family barbecues or safely communicating during a school excursion more highly than a narrowly defined test score. The child’s preferences should guide goals whenever possible, including through gestures, observation, choice boards or supported conversation.

Consent and information sharing also matter. Teams should explain what will be documented, who will receive reports and how providers will communicate. The Privacy Act 1988 and organisational privacy policies shape information handling, while the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 reinforces the need for equitable access and reasonable adjustments. NDIS participants should be supported to understand how goals relate to their plan without making funding language the centre of every conversation.

Write goals that connect communication, movement and independence

A useful shared goal identifies the context, the action, the support level and the expected outcome. For instance: “During classroom transitions, the student will use speech, gesture or their AAC system to indicate where they are going and move with the agreed mobility support in four out of five opportunities.” This goal connects communication and physical access without pretending that one clinician owns the whole outcome.

Avoid vague wording such as “improve social skills” or “increase participation.” Define the observable behaviour and the setting. “During a small-group game, the child will take a turn, wait for a peer and use a taught phrase or symbol to request a turn in four of five opportunities” is easier for an educator and family to recognise.

Goals related to fluency need the same care. A treatment plan should reflect the speaker’s participation, confidence and communication environment rather than treating every moment of stuttering as a failure. For guidance on structuring clinical priorities, see this stuttering treatment plan, then adapt the approach to the child’s functional goals and the wider team’s recommendations.

Quick collaboration checklists

Before the meeting, each clinician can bring:

• One functional strength the child can use immediately
• One participation barrier requiring team support
• One practical strategy for home, school or community settings
• One question that needs shared clinical reasoning

When finalising a goal, check that it includes:

• A real activity and communication partner
• The child’s preferred communication modes
• Relevant motor, sensory or environmental supports
• A measurable way to review progress

Make meetings workable across Australian services

Multidisciplinary collaboration does not always require a long face-to-face meeting. A short case conference, secure written update or shared review document may be more realistic for a family working with providers in different suburbs or towns. Telehealth can support regional and remote access, although the team should consider internet reliability, equipment, privacy and whether the child engages effectively through a screen.

School collaboration benefits from timing and preparation. A meeting held during a busy morning routine in a Sydney or Adelaide school may be less useful than a planned discussion with the classroom teacher, learning support coordinator and family. Provide a brief agenda and focus on two or three priorities. Avoid filling the meeting with discipline-specific terminology that educators cannot easily apply.

Useful details to document

Record:

• The shared participation outcome
• Each clinician’s role and recommended supports
• Who will practise or monitor the strategy
• The review date and evidence needed

Australian services also need to consider funding and reporting requirements. NDIS plans, private health arrangements, state education systems and public health services may use different language and timelines. A goal can remain clinically meaningful while being documented in a format that meets the relevant provider’s obligations.

Coordinate strategies across environments

A child is more likely to use a skill when the same core strategy appears at home, school and therapy. This does not mean every adult must use identical wording or materials. It means the child receives consistent expectations, access to communication and opportunities to practise in natural routines.

For example, a team might agree that the child can use a spoken word, sign, gesture or AAC button to request “help”. The OT may ensure the device is positioned within reach, the PT may consider access during movement activities, and the SLP may teach the word across several contexts. Teachers and family members can then respond consistently rather than waiting for perfect speech.

Screening and assessment tools should support clinical reasoning, not replace it. If a child presents with social communication concerns, the PETE-CAT screener may help organise information about participation and communication needs. The result should be considered alongside observation, family priorities, developmental history and the input of OT and PT colleagues.

Review progress and adjust the plan

Set a review date before the programme begins. Depending on the child, this may be after four to eight weeks, at the end of a school term or when a specific routine has changed. Review both the data and the experience of using the strategy. A goal can show numerical progress while remaining too tiring, inconvenient or irrelevant for the family.

Use several forms of evidence. Frequency counts, prompt levels, video samples, teacher observations, family reports and the child’s own preferences can all contribute. For a mobility-related goal, endurance and safety may matter as much as the number of successful attempts. For a communication goal, spontaneous use and partner responsiveness may matter more than performance in a quiet clinic room.

If progress is limited, avoid assuming that the child is unmotivated. The target may be too difficult, the environment may create barriers, or the team may be using inconsistent supports. Adjust the task, access method, prompt, equipment or success criteria. Collaborative goal setting is an ongoing process of testing what helps the child participate more fully.

Strong interdisciplinary planning gives every professional a clearer purpose and gives families a plan they can recognise in everyday life. Bring the SLP, OT, PT, educators and family together around a small number of functional priorities, document each contribution and revisit the goals as the child’s needs change. Use that shared plan in your next case conference, school meeting or NDIS review to turn separate recommendations into coordinated support.