Creating person‐centred health care value together

Fragilising clients: A positioning analysis of identity construction during clinical psychology trainees' supervision

CONTEXT

Western mental healthcare system reforms prioritise person-centred care and require clinicians to adjust their professional positions. Realising these reforms will necessitate clinicians-including clinical psychologists-acquiring professional identities that align with them. Learners develop professional identities through socialisation activities: within interactional spaces such as supervision learners come to understand the self (clinician) and, by extension, the other (client). A clinician's understanding of who I am is intertwined with an understanding of who they are. Our study offers a moment-by-moment examination of supervision interactions of clinical psychology trainees to illuminate processes through which the identities of therapists and clients are constructed.

AIM

We examined how clinical psychology trainees and supervisors construct identities for themselves and clients in supervision.

METHODS

We used positioning analysis to explore identity construction during interactions between supervisors (n = 4) and trainees (n = 12) in a clinical psychology training clinic. Positioning analysis focuses on the linguistic choices participants make as they position themselves (and others) in certain social spaces during everyday interactions. Twelve supervision sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. We found that clients were frequently positioned as fragile and subsequently analysed these sequences (n = 12).

RESULTS

Clients' identities were constructed as fragile, which co-occurred with clinical psychologists' claiming positions as responsible for managing their distress. Supervisors played an active role in linguistically positioning clients and trainees in this way. Trainees rarely contested the identities made available to them by supervisors.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We suggest that linguistically positioning clients as fragile perpetuates paternalistic clinical discourses that do not align with mental healthcare reform priorities. We make visible how this is achieved interactionally through language and influenced by organisational power relations. Intentional efforts are required to support the professional identity construction of clinical psychologists in ways that do not perpetuate paternalism. We offer recommendations for education and clinical practice to support these efforts.

The Acceptability of post-stroke cognitive testing through the lens of the theory of acceptability, a qualitative study

Background

Cognitive impairment is common after stroke and screening is recommended. However, there is a lack of evidence on the best way to assess cognition after stroke and a tendency to focus on the clinician rather than stroke survivor. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) was developed to better understand the factors that contribute to the acceptability of healthcare interventions from the patient perspective. We aimed to explore the acceptability of post-stroke cognitive assessment from the stroke survivor perspective, using the TFA as a lens.

Methods

We analysed interviews conducted with people admitted to hospital after stroke. Inclusion criteria: ≥18 years, able to provide informed consent. Semi-structured interviews were conducted 1-3 weeks after discharge from hospital in the participant's home to explore the experience of cognitive assessment in hospital. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using framework analysis, with a framework underpinned by the TFA.

Results

Of the 13 participants interviewed, 8 were male, 6 lived in the most deprived SIMD quintile. Ages were 62-84 years. Five themes were identified that describe the factors that influence acceptability of cognitive screening from the patient perspective: (1) participation motives; (2) trust in health professionals; (3) perceived risks of harm; (4) information provision; (5) burden of testing.

Conclusion

Clinical teams should be confident that stroke survivors expect cognitive testing and understand its rational. However, the provision of information and results of cognitive testing should be person-centred.