The Difference between Collaboration and Advice-Giving in the Professional Relationship
The collaboration approach in healthcare usually involves the unity of the actions of therapists and patients. The scientists believe that it includes interprofessional relationships between the clinicians, patients, and their families (Cashell, & Morley, 2017). On the contrary, advice-giving is a simplified process based on providing the patient with direct treatment recommendations (Yip, 2020). Thus, the main difference between the two concepts is that the first one implies constant therapist-patient communication. In contrast, the second one is primarily one-sided and is based only on the clinician’s experience.
tailored to your instructions
for only $13.00 $11.05/page
- Collaborative Approach: the opportunity to increase the patients’ satisfaction with the medical service and develop the healthcare services quality (Morley & Cashell, 2017); the treatment outcome of such is potentially high because it is chosen following the specific patients’ illness peculiarities (Morley & Cashell, 2017).
- Advice-giving: In the more straightforward implementation of this approach (Yip, 2020); the clinicians are supposed to advise according to their understanding of the patient illness without considering the specific issues of each particular problem which is much easier to perform (Yip, 2020).
- Collaborative Approach: requires a significant amount of time to imply this collaboration (Lake, 2017); the illness may be progressive and has no in-time prevention because clinicians need more time to build doctor-patient communication and conduct an in-depth analysis of the problem (Lake, 2017).
- Advice-giving: taking responsibility for advice-giving to the clinician can increase the possibility of medication errors (Heger & Muller, 2018); the misleading advice can harm the reputation o the whole medical organization.
I believe that the risk of advice-giving is relatively high for both patient and clinician because of the human factor and the possibility of medication errors. From my point of view, the treatment outcome can be inadequate because of the misleading advice, and the patient’s safety and mental health can be severely damaged. As a result, the clinician will have to bear the responsibility for providing misleading advice, which sometimes may cause enormous trouble for the reputation of the medical organization. These risks can be avoided if the collaborative approach will be used. The more detailed observation and different perspectives on the illness can improve the treatment outcomes quality.
Cashell, A., & Morley, L. (2017). Collaboration in health care. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 48(2), 207–216. Web.
Heger, O., & Mueller., M. (2018). Health at any cost? Investigating ethical dimensions and potential conflicts of an ambulatory therapeutic assistance system through value sensitive design. ICIS: Psychology, Computer Science, 1, 1–17. Web.
Lake, J. (2017). Urgent need for improved mental health care and a more collaborative model of care. The Permanente Journal, 21, 17–24. Web.
Yip, J. (2020). Directness of advice giving in traditional Chinese medicine consultations. Journal of Pragmatics, 116, 28–38. Web.