4.1 Article

Meanings and perceptions of patient-centeredness in social work, nursing and medicine: A comparative study

Journal

JOURNAL OF INTERPROFESSIONAL CARE
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 484-490

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2012.717553

Keywords

Patient-centeredness; client-centeredness; perception; interprofessional care; internal medicine; social work; nursing

Funding

  1. educational research fellowship at the Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto, Canada
  2. University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland
  3. SICPA foundation, Switzerland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Answering patients' evolving, more complex needs has been recognized as a main incentive for the development of interprofessional care. Thus, it is not surprising that patient-centered practice (PCP) has been adopted as a major outcome for interprofessional education. Nevertheless, little research has focused on how PCP is perceived across the professions. This study aimed to address this issue by adopting a phenomenological approach and interviewing three groups of professionals: social workers (n = 10), nurses (n = 10) and physicians (n = 8). All the participants worked in the same department (the General Internal Medicine department of a university affiliated hospital). Although the participants agreed on a core meaning of PCP as identifying, understanding and answering patients' needs, they used many dimensions to define PCP. Overall, the participants expressed value for PCP as a philosophy of care, but there was the sense of a hierarchy of patient-centeredness across the professions, in which both social work and nursing regarded themselves as more patient-centered than others. On their side, physicians seemed inclined to accept their lower position in this hierarchy. Gieryn's concept of boundary work is employed to help illuminate the nature of PCP within an interprofessional context.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available