Bueter Anke, Jukola Saana
Department of Philosophy and History of Ideas, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Section Philosophy, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Med Health Care Philos. 2025 Jun;28(2):219-232. doi: 10.1007/s11019-025-10252-z. Epub 2025 Jan 23.
Multi-professional teams have become increasingly common in healthcare. Collaboration within such teams aims to enable knowledge amalgamation across specializations and to thereby improve standards of care for patients with complex health issues. However, multi-professional teamwork comes with certain challenges, as it requires successful communication across disciplinary and professional frameworks. In addition, work in multi-professional teams is often characterized by medical dominance, i.e., the perspective of physicians is prioritized over those of nurses, social workers, or other professionals. We argue that medical dominance in multi-professional teams can lead to institutional epistemic injustice, which affects both providers and patients negatively. Firstly, it codifies and promotes a systematic and unfair credibility deflation of the perspectives of professionals other than physicians. Secondly, it indirectly promotes epistemic injustice towards patients via leading to institutional opacity; i.e., via creating an intransparent system of credibility norms that is difficult to navigate. To overcome these problems, multi-professional teamwork requires institutional settings that promote epistemic equity of team members.
多专业团队在医疗保健领域已变得越来越普遍。此类团队内部的协作旨在促进各专业之间的知识融合，从而提高对患有复杂健康问题患者的护理标准。然而，多专业团队合作也带来了一些挑战，因为它需要跨学科和专业框架进行成功的沟通。此外，多专业团队的工作通常以医学主导为特征，即医生的观点优先于护士、社会工作者或其他专业人员的观点。我们认为，多专业团队中的医学主导会导致制度性认知不公正，这对医疗服务提供者和患者都会产生负面影响。首先，它将医生以外专业人员的观点进行系统化且不公平的可信度贬低并加以推广。其次，它通过导致制度不透明间接促进对患者的认知不公正；也就是说，通过创建一个难以理解的不透明可信度规范系统来实现。为克服这些问题，多专业团队合作需要促进团队成员认知公平的制度环境。
