Cited by 270Interprofessional Education and CollaborationInnovations in Medical EducationTeam Dynamics and Performance

Forming professional identities on the health care team: discursive constructions of the ‘other’ in the operating room

Lingard, L, Reznick, R, DeVito, I, Espin, S·2002·Medical Education

Abstract

Background Inter‐professional health care teams represent the nucleus of both patient care and the clinical education of novices. Both activities depend upon the‘talk’ that team members use to interact with one another. This study explored team members’ interpretations of tense team communications in the operating room (OR). Methods The study was conducted using 52 team members divided into 14 focus groups. Team members comprised 13 surgeons, 19 nurses, nine anaesthetists and 11 trainees. Both uni‐disciplinary ( n = 11) and multi‐disciplinary ( n = 3) formats were employed. All groups discussed three communication scenarios, derived from prior ethnographic research. Discussions were audio‐recorded and transcribed. Using a grounded theory approach, three researchers individually analysed sample transcripts, after which group discussions were held to resolve discrepancies and confirm a coding structure. Using the confirmed code, the complete data set was coded using the ‘NVivo’ qualitative data analysis software program. Results There were substantial differences in surgeons’, nurses’, anaesthetists’, and trainees’ interpretations of the communication scenarios. Interpretations were accompanied by subjects’ depictions of disciplinary roles on the team. Subjects’ constructions of other professions’ roles, values and motivations were often dissonant with those professions’ constructions of themselves. Conclusions Team members, particularly novices, tend to simplify and distort others’ roles and motivations as they interpret tense communication. We suggest that such simplifications may be rhetorical, reflecting professional rivalries on the OR team. In addition, we theorise that novices’ echoing of role simplification has implications for their professional identity formation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01271.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 270

Authors
Lingard, L., Reznick, R., DeVito, I., & Espin, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University Health Network (CA)
Corresponding author
Lingard, L
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-08
Volume
36
Issue
8
Pages
728-734
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2098180093
Cited by
270
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
FWCI
11.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
interprofessional communication, surgical workforce, professional identity formation, professional rivalry, novice trainees, surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, team communication
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Ontario, Patient Care Team, Verbal Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review