Concern Constructions in Multidisciplinary Team Meetings: Risk or Patient Focused?

  • Madeleine TremblettEmail author
Part of the The Language of Mental Health book series (TLMH)


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.


  1. Anspach, R. (1993). Deciding who lives: Fateful choices in the intensive-care nursery. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Antaki, C., & O’Reilly, M. (2014). Either/or questions in child psychiatric assessments: The effect of the seriousness and order of the alternatives. Discourse Studies, 16(3), 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attree, M. (2007). Factors influencing nurses’ decisions to raise concerns about care quality. Journal of Nursing Management, 15, 392–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belanger, E., & Rodriguez, C. (2008). More than the sum of its parts? A qualitative research synthesis on multidisciplinary primary care teams. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 22(6), 587–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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:/
  7. DoH. (2012). Transforming care: A national response to Winterbourne View Hospital. Retrieved from
  8. DoH. (2015a). No voice unheard, no right ignored—A consultation for people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health conditions. Retrieved from
  9. 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
  10. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Reseach on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heritage, J. (2012b). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370–394) Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heritage, J., Robinson, J. D., Elliot, M. N., Beckett, M., & Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: The different one word can make. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(10), 1429–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Maynard, D. W., & Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis, doctor-patient interaction and medical communication. Medical Education, 39, 428–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mencap. (2007). Death by indifference. Retrieved from
  20. Mickan, S., Hoffman, S. J., & Nasmith, L. (2010). Collaborative practice in a global health context: Common themes from developed and developing countries. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 24(5), 495–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Chichester: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2003). “I’m a bit concerned”—Early actions and psychological constructions in a child protection helpline. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(3), 197–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Sikveland, R. O., & Stokoe, E. (2016). Dealing with resistance in initial intake and inquiry calls to mediation: The power of ‘willing’. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 33(3), 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stivers, T. (2013). Sequence organisation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 191–209). Chichester: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Supper, I., Catala, O., Lustmanm, M., Chemla, C., Bourgueil, Y., & Letrilliart, L. (2014). Interprofessional collaboration in primary health care: A review of facilitators and barriers perceived by involved actors. Journal of Public Health, 37(4), 716–727.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations