Ideological dilemmas of healthcare professionals who do not speak up at interprofessional team meetings

Abstract

ABSTRACT In healthcare settings, speaking up is considered essential for patient safety. Indeed, voice opportunities are widely available mandatory mechanisms for speaking up at the routine interprofessional team meetings of our study site. Yet, healthcare professionals in team meetings often do not go beyond straightforward reporting of test results and biomedical-functional parameters, suggesting that members with psycho-social information related to the patient are not participating fully in team meetings. Post-meeting interviews with some of the team members revealed the moments of silence and the ideological contradictions underlying team discussions. We explored silences and contradictions as argumentative meanings inherent in naturally occurring speech. The identification of opposing meanings tells of ideological dilemmas that may explain why healthcare practitioners do not speak up vigorously. We identified three such dilemmas: the ideology of working in teams versus the ideology of working solo; the ideology of autonomy versus the ideology of paternalism; and the ideology of collectivism versus the ideology of individuality. The dilemmas made visible the dimensions of silence as well as silencing as an imposition of silence from above. We suggest focussing on mapping disciplinary and interpretive differences and their effects amongst team members may motivate voice. Further studies should explore the affective dimensions of silence in interprofessional team meetings.