Concern Constructions in Multidisciplinary Team Meetings: Risk or Patient Focused?
Risk is a high profile area in the care management of people who need consistent support to live healthily. Professionals in multidisciplinary teams need to work together to solve problems, including the chance of risk relating to a client’s care. If a professional is unsure of the level of risk to a client, the multidisciplinary team can be used as a forum to determine the need to implement safeguarding procedures. This chapter examines the use of concern constructions in multidisciplinary team meetings to gain collaborative input from other professionals to determine risk. A range of concern constructions are explored, covering both those that open up discussion between multiple professionals and less successful constructions for creating an opportunity to recruit other professionals’ opinions. The chapter discusses how the ability to voice potential issues is important for professionals in preventing taking action that could have a damaging impact if unfounded.
- Anspach, R. (1993). Deciding who lives: Fateful choices in the intensive-care nursery. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Clayman, S. E. (2013). Turn-construction units and the transition-relevance place. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 150–166). Chichester: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. (2006). Joint investigation into the provision of services for people with learning disabilities at Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060502043818/, http:/healthcarecommission.org.uk/_db/_documents/cornwall_investigation_report.pdf.
- DoH. (2012). Transforming care: A national response to Winterbourne View Hospital. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213215/final-report.pdf.
- DoH. (2015a). No voice unheard, no right ignored—A consultation for people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health conditions. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/409816/Document.pdf.
- DoH. (2015b). Government response to no voice unheard, no right ignored—A consultation for people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health conditions. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/475155/Gvt_Resp_Acc.pdf.
- Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Heritage, J., & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice. Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first time mothers. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 359–417) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lambertz, K. (2011). Back‐channelling: The use of yeah and mm to portray engaged listenership. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 4 (1/2), 11–18.Google Scholar
- Mencap. (2007). Death by indifference. Retrieved from https://www.mencap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2016-06/DBIreport.pdf.
- Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Chichester: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Stivers, T. (2013). Sequence organisation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 191–209). Chichester: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Ten Have, P. (1991). Talk and institution: A reconsideration of the ‘asymmetry’ of doctor-patient interaction. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 138–163). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Zwarenstein, M., Goldman, J., & Reeves, S., (2009). Interprofessional collaboration: Effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cohrane Database Systematic Review, 8(3), CD000072.Google Scholar