IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v24y2015i23-24p3528-3537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An exploration of partnership through interactions between young ‘expert’ patients with cystic fibrosis and healthcare professionals

Author

Listed:
  • Kath MacDonald
  • Lindesay Irvine
  • Margaret Coulter Smith

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore how young ‘expert patients’ living with Cystic Fibrosis and the healthcare professionals with whom they interact perceive partnership and negotiate care. Background Modern healthcare policy encourages partnership, engagement and self‐management of long‐term conditions. This philosophy is congruent with the model adopted in the care of those with Cystic Fibrosis, where self‐management, trust and mutual respect are perceived to be integral to the development of the ongoing patient/professional relationship. Self‐management is associated with the term; ‘expert patient’; an individual with a long‐term condition whose knowledge and skills are valued and used in partnership with healthcare professionals. However, the term ‘expert patient’ is debated in the literature as are the motivation for its use and the assumptions implicit in the term. Design A qualitative exploratory design informed by Interpretivism and Symbolic Interactionism was conducted. Methods Thirty‐four consultations were observed and 23 semi‐structured interviews conducted between 10 patients, 2 carers and 12 healthcare professionals. Data were analysed thematically using the five stages of ‘Framework’ a matrix‐based qualitative data analysis approach and were subject to peer review and respondent validation. The study received full ethical approval. Results Three main themes emerged; experiences of partnership, attributes of the expert patient and constructions of illness. Sub‐themes of the ‘ceremonial order of the clinic’, negotiation and trust in relationships and perceptions of the expert patient are presented. Conclusions The model of consultation may be a barrier to person‐centred care. Healthcare professionals show leniency in negotiations, but do not always trust patients' accounts. The term ‘expert patient’ is unpopular and remains contested. Relevance to clinical practice Gaining insight into structures and processes that enable or inhibit partnership can lead to a collaborative approach to service redesign and a revision of the consultation model.

Suggested Citation

  • Kath MacDonald & Lindesay Irvine & Margaret Coulter Smith, 2015. "An exploration of partnership through interactions between young ‘expert’ patients with cystic fibrosis and healthcare professionals," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(23-24), pages 3528-3537, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:23-24:p:3528-3537
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13021
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pilnick, Alison & Dingwall, Robert, 2011. "On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1374-1382, April.
    2. Gabe, Jonathan & Olumide, Gillian & Bury, Michael, 2004. "'It takes three to tango':: a framework for understanding patient partnership in paediatric clinics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(5), pages 1071-1079, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mary Bourke & Catherine Houghton, 2018. "Exploring the need for Transition Readiness Scales within cystic fibrosis services: A qualitative descriptive study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(13-14), pages 2814-2824, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Llanwarne, Nadia & Newbould, Jennifer & Burt, Jenni & Campbell, John L. & Roland, Martin, 2017. "Wasting the doctor's time? A video-elicitation interview study with patients in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 113-122.
    2. Carmel, Simon, 2006. "Health care practices, professions and perspectives: A case study in intensive care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 2079-2090, April.
    3. Murdoch, Jamie & Salter, Charlotte & Ford, John & Lenaghan, Elizabeth & Shiner, Alice & Steel, Nicholas, 2020. "The “unknown territory” of goal-setting: Negotiating a novel interactional activity within primary care doctor-patient consultations for patients with multiple chronic conditions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    4. Jennifer Chamberlain-Salaun & Kim Usher & Jane Mills, 2020. "Outsiders in the Experts’ World: A Grounded Theory Study of Consumers and the Social World of Health Care," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    5. Stacey, Clare Louise & Henderson, Stuart & MacArthur, Kelly R. & Dohan, Daniel, 2009. "Demanding patient or demanding encounter?: A case study of a cancer clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 729-737, September.
    6. Laura Boland & France Légaré & Daniel I. McIsaac & Ian D. Graham & Monica Taljaard & Simon Dècary & Dawn Stacey, 2019. "SURE Test Accuracy for Decisional Conflict Screening among Parents Making Decisions for Their Child," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 1010-1018, November.
    7. Ellen A. Lipstein & William B. Brinkman & Maria T. Britto, 2012. "What Is Known about Parents’ Treatment Decisions? A Narrative Review of Pediatric Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(2), pages 246-258, March.
    8. de Kok, B.C. & Widdicombe, S. & Pilnick, A. & Laurier, E., 2018. "Doing patient-centredness versus achieving public health targets: A critical review of interactional dilemmas in ART adherence support," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 17-25.
    9. Caronia, Letizia & Saglietti, Marzia & Chieregato, Arturo, 2020. "Challenging the interprofessional epistemic boundaries: The practices of informing in nurse-physician interaction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    10. Burson, Randall C. & Familusi, Olivia O. & Clapp, Justin T., 2022. "Imagining the ‘structural’ in medical education and practice in the United States: A curricular investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 300(C).
    11. Tian, Xiaoli & Zhang, Sai, 2022. "Expert or experiential knowledge? How knowledge informs situated action in childcare practices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    12. Jenkins, Laura & Hepburn, Alexa & MacDougall, Colin, 2020. "How and why children instigate talk in pediatric allergy consultations: A conversation analytic account," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    13. Angell, Beth & Bolden, Galina B., 2015. "Justifying medication decisions in mental health care: Psychiatrists' accounts for treatment recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 44-56.
    14. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    15. Ayuandini, Sherria, 2017. "Finger Pricks and Blood Vials: How doctors medicalize ‘cultural’ solutions to demedicalize the ‘broken’ hymen in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 61-68.
    16. Toerien, Merran, 2021. "When do patients exercise their right to refuse treatment? A conversation analytic study of decision-making trajectories in UK neurology outpatient consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    17. Swinglehurst, Deborah, 2014. "Displays of authority in the clinical consultation: A linguistic ethnographic study of the electronic patient record," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 17-26.
    18. Fraser, Suzanne & Fomiatti, Renae & Moore, David & Seear, Kate & Aitken, Campbell, 2020. "Is another relationship possible? Connoisseurship and the doctor–patient relationship for men who consume performance and image-enhancing drugs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    19. Rosalind Waller & Michael Tholander & Doris Nilsson, 2017. "‘You Will Have These Ones!’: Six Women’s Experiences of Being Pressured to Make a Contraceptive Choice That Did Not Feel Right," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-14, September.
    20. Lian, Olaug S. & Nettleton, Sarah & Wifstad, Åge & Dowrick, Christopher, 2021. "Negotiating uncertainty in clinical encounters: A narrative exploration of naturally occurring primary care consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:23-24:p:3528-3537. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.