Athlete integration with interdisciplinary teams
Hi Keegan! In a P4 collegiate setting, we're fortunate to have most of our practitioners under one roof — AT, PT, S&C, nutrition, sports medicine, sport psych — but proximity doesn't automatically equal communication. You can have everyone in the same building and still operate in silos. So the infrastructure matters, but so does the culture and expectations you build around it. On systems and communication tools: We use a layered approach — athlete management software (Epic and Teamworks) as the backbone for documentation and monitoring, private messaging for quick cross-staff communication, and regular in-person High Performance Team meetings. Honestly, no single tool solves it. What matters more is the norm you establish: everyone documents, everyone reads, and no one assumes another provider already communicated something critical. One thing that's helped enormously is establishing a shared language around rehab phases. When the AT and S&C are using the same phase terminology, I can align my nutrition protocols accordingly — ideally, energy availability targets, protein timing, and supplementation strategies can shift meaningfully between early-stage tissue healing and late-stage return-to-performance loading. If I don't know what phase an athlete is in, I'm guessing, and that's a disservice to the athlete. On the rehab-to-performance transition: Personally, This is where I think nutrition could be utilized more. Readiness to transition could include a nutritional readiness component. Is the athlete fueling adequately to support high-load training? Are they coming out of a prolonged deficit from the injury period? Have we addressed body composition changes that happened during rehab? I try to advocate for a seat at that table. On differing philosophies and overlapping responsibilities: This is where things can get genuinely messy. The fix isn't always a formal protocol; sometimes it's a direct, honest conversation between practitioners before it becomes an issue or confusion for the athlete. I try my best to address those tensions early and keep the athlete's wellbeing and performance as the non-negotiable center of the conversation. Overlapping scope is another real tension. An example of this can happen between nutrition, S&C, and AT around supplementation, body weights and/or body composition. I've found that clearly defining responsibilities and who leads (vs who influences) in each area early in the staff relationship is really helpful. Hopefully everyone can default to collaborative rather than territorial ("you're in my lane") language. What's worked best: The single highest-leverage thing you can do is invest in the relationships before you need them. When an AT trusts my clinical judgment and I understand their rehab philosophy, the communication around a specific athlete becomes much faster and more effective. Those relationships don't happen in staff meetings — they happen in the hallways, in the weight room, and over lunch. Continuing pain points: Curious how others are handling the philosophy conflicts specifically (ie different philosophies on the best course of RTP, treatment/referrals for EDs, and how to fund and prioritize programming) — sometimes this feels like the least-discussed and most consequential friction point. I like to try and center the group around a common goal and then dive into the evidence, but sometimes people interpret evidence differently and I would love to hear any other helpful approaches!
