Advertisement

Power Struggles in MDT Meetings: Using Different Orders of Interaction to Understand the Interplay of Hierarchy, Knowledge and Accountability

  • Cordet SmartEmail author
  • Christianne Pollock
  • Lindsay Aikman
  • Erica Willoughby
Chapter
Part of the The Language of Mental Health book series (TLMH)

Abstract

Power and hierarchy are key themes in MDT interactions. The literature suggests they can lead to some clinicians not being heard, with negative consequences for assessments. Power and hierarchy can be considered as relational, best studied as one person talks to another. Applying a conversation analysis approach, we introduced epistemic and deontic status and stance as key analytic tools. We show how respect can be shown for the professional knowledge of others and how this can be usurped, for example through a lack of historical knowledge of a person. We illustrate how groups can manage, drown out and challenge the epistemic status of a team member (in this case the psychiatrist). Findings illustrated interactional practices where professional hierarchies were shown to have less impact.

References

  1. Anspach, R. R. (1993). Deciding who lives: Fateful choices in the intensive-care nursery. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Atwal, A., & Caldwell, K. (2005). Do all health and social care professionals interact equally: A study of interactions in multidisciplinary teams in the United Kingdom. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 19(3), 268–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, L., Egan-Lee, E., Martimianakis, M. A., & Reeves, S. (2011). Relationships of power: Implications for interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25(2), 98–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler, R. R., Monsalve, M. N., Segre, A. M., Herman, T., Polgreen, P. M., Erickson, H. L., & Comellas, A. P. (2018). Estimating time physicians and other healthcare workers spend with patients in an intensive care unit using a sensor network. American Journal of Medicine, 131(8), 972.e9–972.e15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.03.015.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christofides, S., Johnstone, L., & Musa, M. (2012). ‘Chipping in’: Clinical psychologists’ descriptions of their use of formulation in multidisciplinary team working. Psychology and Psychotherapy, 85(4), 424–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cott, C. (1997). “We decide, you carry it out”: A social network analysis of multidisciplinary long-term care teams. Social Science and Medicine, 45(9), 1411–1421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cott, C. (1998). Structure and meaning in multidisciplinary teamwork. Sociology of Health & Illness, 20(6), 848–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crosby, B. C. (2010). Leading in the shared-power world of 2020. Public Administration Review, 70(s1), s69–s77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Currie, G., & Suhomlinova, O. (2006). The impact of institutional forces upon knowledge sharing in the UK NHS: The triumph of professional power and the inconsistency of policy. Public Administration, 84(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Currie, G., Finn, R., & Martin, G. (2010). Role transition and the interaction of relational and social identity: New nursing roles in the English NHS. Organization Studies, 31(7), 941–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Currie, G., Lockett, A., Finn, R., Martin, G., & Waring, J. (2012). Institutional work to maintain professional power: Recreating the model of medical professionalism. Organization Studies, 33(7), 937–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunne, F. J., Jaffar, K., & Latoo, J. (2013). Poor ways of working: Dilution of care and responsibility. British Journal of Medical Practitioners, 6(2), a613.Google Scholar
  13. Gair, G., & Hartery, T. (2001). Medical dominance in multidisciplinary teamwork: A case study of discharge decision-making in a geriatric assessment unit. Journal of Nursing Management, 9(1), 3–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  16. Henneman, E. A., Lee, J. L., & Cohen, J. I. (1995). Collaboration: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21(1), 103–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?” The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 42–68). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives. In J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 179–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Janss, R., Rispens, S., Segers, M., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). What is happening under the surface? Power, conflict and the performance of medical teams. Medical Education, 46(9), 838–849.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, S. L. (2009). International perspectives on workplace bullying among nurses: A review. International Nursing Review, 56(1), 34–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klein, R. (1982). Performance, evaluation and the NHS: A case study in conceptual perplexity and organizational complexity. Public Administration, 60(4), 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koeck, C. (2014). Imbalance of power between patients and doctors. British Medical Journal, 349, g7485.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Landmark, A. M. D., Gulbrandsen, P., & Svennevig, J. (2015). Whose decision? Negotiating epistemic and deontic rights in medical treatment decisions. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lipman, T. (2000). Power and influence in clinical effectiveness and evidence based medicine. Family Practice, 17(6), 557–563.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maddock, A. (2014). Consensus or contention: An exploration of multidisciplinary team functioning in an Irish mental health context. European Journal of Social Work, 18(2), 246–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marriott, S. (2008). Inclusion and exclusion in the NHS: Power, innovation and rejection in nursing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
  28. Marshall, P., & Robson, R. (2005). Preventing and managing conflict: Vital pieces in the patient safety puzzle. Healthcare Quarterly, 8(Sp).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCallin, A. (1999). Revolution in healthcare: Altering Systems, changing behaviour. PhD, Gaithersburg.Google Scholar
  30. Nadzam, D. M. (2009). Nurses’ role in communication and patient safety. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 24(3), 184–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oborn, E., & Dawson, S. (2010). Knowledge and practice in multidisciplinary teams: Struggle, accommodation and privilege. Human Relations, 63(12), 1835–1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ogland-Hand, S. M., & Zeiss, A. M. (2000). Interprofessional health care teams. In V. Molinari (Ed.), Professional psychology in long term care: A comprehensive guide (pp. 257–277). New York, NY: Hatherleigh Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pratto, F. (2015). On power and empowerment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(1–20).  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Propp, K. M., Apker, J., Zabava Ford, W. S., Wallace, N., Serbenski, M., & Hofmeister, N. (2010). Meeting the complex needs of the health care team: Identification of nurse—Team communication practices perceived to enhance patient outcomes. Qualitative Health Research, 20(1), 15–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. C. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reeves, S., Rice, K., Conn, L. G., Miller, K. L., Kenaszchuk, C., & Zwarenstein, M. (2009). Interprofessional interaction, negotiation and non-negotiation on general internal medicine wards. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(6), 633–645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rowlands, S., & Callen, J. (2013). A qualitative analysis of communication between members of a hospital-based multidisciplinary lung cancer team. European Journal of Cancer Care, 22(1), 20–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society, 43(2), 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner, J. C. J. (1990). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Weber, M., Lukes, S., & Webb, P. D. (1986). Domination by economic power and by authority. In S. Lukes (Ed.), Power. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Yoon, D. J., & Bono, J. E. (2016). Hierarchical power and personality in leader-member exchange. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(7), 1198–1213.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2015-0078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cordet Smart
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christianne Pollock
    • 2
  • Lindsay Aikman
    • 3
  • Erica Willoughby
    • 4
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  2. 2.NHS England, Transforming Care ProgrammeLondonUK
  3. 3.Livewell SouthwestPlymouthUK
  4. 4.Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation TrustCornwallUK

Personalised recommendations