The challenge to health professionals when carers resist truth telling at the end of life: a qualitative secondary analysis

Aims and objectives: To draw out the similar complexities faced by staff around
truth-telling in a children’s and adult population and to interrogate the dilemmas faced by staff when informal carers act to block truth-telling.

Background: Policy encourages normalisation of death, but carers may act to protect or prevent the patient from being told the truth. Little is known about the impact on staff.

Design: Secondary analysis of data using a supra-analysis design to identify commonality of experiences.

Methods: Secondary ‘supra-analysis’ was used to transcend the focus of two primary studies in the UK, which examined staff perspectives in a palliative children’s and a palliative adult setting, respectively. The analysis examined new theoretical questions relating to the commonality of issues independently derived in each primary study. Both primary studies used focus groups. Existing empirical data were analysed thematically and compared across the studies.

Results: Staff reported a hiding of the truth by carers and sustained use of activities aimed at prolonging life. Carers frequently ignored the advance of end of life, and divergence between staff and carer approaches to truth-telling challenged professionals. Not being truthful with patients had a deleterious effect on staff, causing anger and feelings of incompetence.

Conclusions: Both children’s and adult specialist palliative care staff found themselves caught in a dilemma, subject to policies that promoted openness in planning for death and informal carers who often prevented them from being truthful with patients about terminal prognosis. This dilemma had adverse psychological effects upon many staff.

Relevance to clinical practice: There remains a powerful death-denying culture in
many societies, and carers of dying patients may prevent staff from being truthful with their patients. The current situation is not ideal, and open discussion of this problem is the essential first step in finding a solution.

Sustaining school partnerships: The context of cross-sectoral collaboration between schools in a separate education system in Northern Ireland

This study explores the current understanding of cross-sectoral collaboration between schools in a divided society. The paper provides the context surrounding inter-school collaboration in Northern Ireland then presents findings based on a qualitative study of five post-primary partnerships made up of schools from the various sectors in Northern Ireland (maintained/Catholic, controlled/Protestant and integrated sectors). Participants in the study are teachers and school leaders. Evidence from this study reveals a number of things: despite a separate education system made up of different sectors, schools on an inter-sectoral basis are willing to collaborate and those represented in this study appeared disposed to sustain partnership activities; schools recognised that collaboration and partnership while beset with a number of logistical challenges, is also beneficial for pupils and institutions. In all cases there remained evidence of sustainable collaborative practice; although some of this was more developed in some partnerships than in others. In effect this paper concludes by recognising that schools do require some level of funding to sustain partnership working but that sustainability should not be couched entirely around these terms; rather, sustainability is about creating the right conditions to allow schools to develop effective and strong partnerships. These conditions are outlined in the latter stages of this paper.

A standing ovation for Nigel: An informal study

This article analyses a series of emails thanking Nigel for his stewardship of JASSS and the characteristics of their authors. It identifies a correlation between two measures of author activity in social simulation research, but no pattern between these activity measures and the email timing. Instead, the sequence suggests a classic standing ovation effect.

How do clinicians become teachers? A communities of practice perspective.

There is widespread acceptance that clinical educators should be trained to teach, but faculty development for clinicians is undermined by poor attendance and inadequate learning transfer. As a result there has been growing interest in situating teacher development initiatives in clinical workplaces. The relationship between becoming a teacher and clinical workplace contexts is under theorised. In response, this qualitative research set out to explore how clinicians become teachers in relation to clinical communities and institutions. Using communities of practice (CoP) as a conceptual framework this research employed the sensitising concepts of regimes of competence and vertical (managerial) and horizontal (professional) planes of accountability to elucidate structural influences on teacher development. Fourteen hospital physicians completed developmental timelines and underwent semi-structured interviews, exploring their development as teachers. Despite having very different developmental pathways, participants’ descriptions of their teacher identities and practice that were remarkably congruent. Two types of CoP occupied the horizontal plane of accountability i.e. clinical teams (Firms) and communities of junior doctors (Fraternities). Participants reproduced teacher identities and practice that were congruent with CoPs’ regimes of competence in order to gain recognition and legitimacy. Participants also constructed their teacher identities in relation to institutions in the vertical plane of accountability (i.e. hospitals and medical schools). Institutions that valued teaching supported the development of teacher identities along institutionally defined lines. Where teaching was less valued, clinicians adapted their teacher identities and practices to suit institutional norms. Becoming a clinical educator entails continually negotiating one’s identity and practice between two potentially conflicting planes of accountability. Clinical CoPs are largely conservative and reproductive of teaching practice whereas accountability to institutions is potentially disruptive of teacher identity and practice.