This one can get awkward really quickly.

The OT has suggested one thing. The physio has suggested something slightly different. Speech has another priority. The family has been told something else again.

And then the AHA is standing in the middle thinking, okay, which one am I actually meant to do?

We do not think this automatically means somebody is wrong.

Often it means different people are looking at the same person through different clinical lenses.

Different disciplines notice different things

That is kind of the whole point of multidisciplinary care.

A physio might be thinking about movement, strength, positioning or mobility.

An OT might be thinking about participation, sensory processing, routines or functional independence.

A speech pathologist might be thinking about communication, comprehension, mealtimes or interaction.

Those perspectives can overlap beautifully.

They can also create moments where two recommendations sound like they are pulling in different directions.

The AHA should not be left to referee the team

This is probably the bit we feel most strongly about.

If you're an AHA and two clinicians have given you instructions that do not seem to match, it is not your job to quietly decide which clinician is right.

That is a conversation the clinicians need to have.

You can absolutely notice the conflict and raise it.

You might say, "I just want to check this because I have been given two different instructions and I am not sure how you want me to approach it."

That is not being difficult.

That is exactly the kind of information the team needs.

Sometimes the advice is not actually conflicting

We have seen this happen too.

Two clinicians can use completely different language and actually be trying to achieve something very similar.

One person might say, give them more time to process.

Another might say, reduce the verbal load.

Those are not necessarily competing ideas.

But if nobody joins the dots, the person delivering the session might hear them as two separate sets of instructions.

And sometimes it really is conflicting

We also do not want to pretend every difference disappears if we just communicate better.

Sometimes professionals genuinely disagree.

That can happen because they are prioritising different risks, different outcomes or different pieces of information.

That disagreement should still be discussed openly and professionally.

The goal should not be winning the argument.

The goal is getting clearer about what matters most for the client right now.

Bring it back to the person

This is where person centred care becomes more than a nice phrase.

What matters to the person and their family?

What are they trying to do in everyday life?

Which recommendation actually fits their current priorities, safety, environment and capacity?

Sometimes the team can get so focused on discipline specific goals that the person in the middle starts disappearing.

We have to keep bringing them back into the conversation.

Families feel this confusion too

Imagine being a parent or family member and having three professionals tell you three different things to practise at home.

Even if every recommendation makes sense individually, together it can become a full time job.

We think this is where allied health teams need to ask a really practical question.

What is realistic for this family?

Because five excellent recommendations that nobody has capacity to carry out are not necessarily more useful than one or two priorities that genuinely fit into everyday life.

AHPs, make the hierarchy of priorities clear

If you are delegating to an AHA who is working across several disciplines, do they know which recommendations are essential, which are flexible and which depend on the situation?

If everything is presented as equally important, the AHA can end up with a huge list and no way to prioritise it.

A quick team conversation can save a lot of uncertainty later.

The AHA can sometimes see the collision before anyone else

This is another reason we think AHAs are such an important part of the team.

If you are the person actually trying to carry out several recommendations in the same session, you may be the first one to notice that they do not fit together very well.

Bring that back.

You can say, "When I try to do both of these in the same session, I am finding this part difficult. How would you like me to prioritise it?"

That is useful feedback for the clinicians.

It helps them see what their recommendations actually look like when they hit real life.

A multidisciplinary team should give the client more clarity, not leave the person delivering the plan with five different maps.

We're really interested in how other teams handle this. If you're an AHA, have you ever been given advice from two clinicians that did not seem to fit together? If you're an AHP, what helps your multidisciplinary team keep recommendations clear and realistic? Add it below. We think this is one of those conversations that could save a lot of quiet confusion.