McRae Leon
Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2013 Apr;24(2):215-232. doi: 10.1080/14789949.2012.752518. Epub 2012 Dec 14.
This paper reports on the results of a qualitative study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) looking at multidisciplinary team decisions to admit sentenced offenders with antisocial personality disorder to a medium secure unit. The aim of the study was to examine admission decision-making from a multidisciplinary perspective, and to explore the interprofessional dynamics and contextual pressures informing those decisions. The primary method of data collection was 12 semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of various multidisciplinary staff involved in pre-admission assessment and post-assessment decision-making. Data was then coded according to the dialectic of competitive and cooperative goal seeking within groups. The findings suggest that, whilst both forms of goal seeking inform admission decisions, the presence of significant resource pressures will lead to decisional solidarity among the multidisciplinary team. When minor professional disagreements arise, they are resolved by the group leader, the Responsible Clinician, in order to maximise group productivity. It is argued that the discursive-limiting effect of resource pressures on group decision-making may weaken the morale of certain front line staff, if not undermine institutional purpose.
本文报告了一项由经济和社会研究委员会(ESRC)资助的定性研究结果,该研究关注多学科团队关于将患有反社会人格障碍的被判刑罪犯收治到中度安全病房的决策。该研究的目的是从多学科角度审视收治决策,并探讨影响这些决策的跨专业动态和背景压力。数据收集的主要方法是对参与入院前评估和评估后决策的各类多学科工作人员进行了12次半结构化访谈,访谈对象为便利样本。然后根据群体内部竞争与合作目标寻求的辩证法对数据进行编码。研究结果表明,虽然这两种目标寻求形式都影响收治决策,但巨大的资源压力会导致多学科团队在决策上达成一致。当出现轻微的专业分歧时,由团队领导,即责任临床医生解决,以实现团队生产力最大化。有人认为,资源压力对群体决策的话语限制作用可能会削弱某些一线工作人员的士气,甚至可能损害机构的宗旨。