Introducing Mechanically Assisted Cough for Patients With Progressive Neurological Disease: Patient-Physical Therapist Interaction and Physical Therapist Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to explore the patient-physical therapist interaction and the physical therapist's experience of the introductory session for mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) device treatment for patients with progressive neurological disease. METHODS: Qualitative content analysis of participant's observation of interaction between patients and physical therapists during 9 MI-E introduction sessions in different clinical care settings and 10 follow-up interviews with 6 physical therapists. RESULTS: The introduction of MI-E emerged as a process of instilling a sense of security in the patient. The process can be described in 4 steps: (1) gain understanding by being responsive to the person's whole life situation; (2) share knowledge and expectations in a respectful and permissive way; (3) introduce the device in a gentle and reciprocal interactivity; and (4) adapt to home use in an inclusive dialog with the patient and their significant others. Physical therapists described a need for assurance to instill a sense of security in the patient, implying a need for confidence, competent peers, guiding yet flexible routines, and emotional support. CONCLUSION: Physical therapists have a need to foster assurance in employing a person-centered approach to make a patient feel secure in the process of introducing MI-E treatment. Multiple modes of professional knowledge were used together with action-based and relational-based ethics to facilitate a person-centered care approach. This seems to be a promising approach for providing good care when introducing MI-E to patients. Further research is needed to explore this from the patient's perspective. IMPACT: This study added to the body of knowledge regarding MI-E treatment in relation to patients. This has direct implication, particularly for inexperienced physical therapists, for informed care for the patient during introduction. Our study also supports that person-centered care should be implemented at all levels of health care to make it possible for physical therapists to practice person-centered care.

What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project.

The evaluation of the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes project (Euro-MCD) has resulted in a revised evaluation instrument, knowledge about the content of MCD (moral case deliberation), and the perspectives of those involved. In this paper, we report on a perspective that has been overlooked, the facilitators'. We aim to describe facilitators' perceptions of high-quality moral case deliberation and their Euro-MCD sessions. The research took place in Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands using a survey combined with interviews with 41 facilitators. Facilitators' perceived that attaining a high-quality MCD implies fostering a safe and respectful atmosphere, creating a wondering mode, being an attentive authority, developing moral reflective skills, reaching a common understanding, and ensuring organisational prerequisites for the MCD sessions. Our central conclusion is that efforts at three levels are required to attain a high-quality MCD: trained and virtuous facilitator; committed, respectful participants; and organizational space. Furthermore, managers have a responsibility to prepare MCD participants for what it means to take part in MCD.

Exploring what is reasonable: uncovering moral reasoning of vascular surgeons in daily practice.

BACKGROUND: Vascular surgery offers a range of treatments to relieve pain and ulcerations, and to prevent sudden death by rupture of blood vessels. The surgical procedures involve risk of injury and harm, which increases with age and frailty leading to complex decision-making processes that raise ethical questions. However, how vascular surgeons negotiate these questions is scarcely studied. The aim was therefore to explore vascular surgeons' moral reasoning of what ought to be done for the patient. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 vascular surgeons working at three Swedish university hospitals. Data were analysed according to systematic text condensation. RESULTS: The surgeons' moral reasoning about what ought to be done comprised a quest to relieve suffering and avoid harm by exploring what is reasonable to do for the patient. Exploring reasonableness included to shift one´s perspective from the vessels to the whole person, to balance patient's conflicting needs and to place responsibility for right decision on one´s shoulders. The shift from blood vessels to the whole person implied gaining holistic knowledge in pondering of what is best, struggling with one´s authority for surgery through dialogue, and building relationship for mutual security. To balance patient's conflicting needs implied weighing the patient's independence and a sense of being whole against ease of suffering, respecting the patient's will against protecting life and well-being, and weighing longer life against protecting the present well-being. Finally, to place responsibility on one´s shoulders was conveyed as an urge to remind oneself of the risk of complications, withholding one's power of proficiency, and managing time during the illness course. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to uncovering how moral reasoning is embodied in the vascular surgeons' everyday clinical discourse as a tangible part of their patient care. The results underpin the significance of moral considerations in the assemblage of medical knowledge and technical skills to further understand vascular surgeons' clinical practice. The clinical application of these results is the need of forums with sufficient possibilities for articulating these important moral considerations in everyday care.

Moral and exhausting distress working in the frontline of COVID-19: a Swedish survey during the first wave in four healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence and sources of experienced moral stress and anxiety by Swedish frontline healthcare staff in the early phase of COVID-19. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey, quantitative and qualitative. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 1074 healthcare professionals (75% nurses) in intensive, ward-based, primary and municipal care in one Swedish county. MEASURES: A study-specific closed-ended and an open-ended questionnaire about moral stress and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale measuring anxiety, followed by an open question about anxiety. FINDINGS: Moral stress was experienced by 52% of respondents and anxiety by 40%. Moral stress in concern for others attributed to institutional constraints comprised experiences of being deprived of possibilities to respond to humane and professional responsibility. Staff experienced being restricted in fulfilling patients' and families' need for closeness and security as well as being compelled to provide substandard and inhumane care. Uncertainty about right and good, without blame, was also described. However, a burdensome guilt also emerged as a moral distress, blaming oneself. This comprised feeling complicit in the spread of COVID-19, inadequacy in care and carrying patients' suffering. Staff also experienced an exhausting distress as a self-concern in an uncontrollable work situation. This comprised a taxing insecurity by being in limbo, being alone and fear of failing, despair of being deprived control by not being heard; unable to influence; distrusting management; as well as an excessive workload. CONCLUSIONS: We have not only contributed with knowledge about experiences of being in the frontline of COVID-19, but also with an understanding of a demarcation between moral stress/distress as a concern for patients and family, and exhausting distress in work situation as self-concern. A lesson for management is that ethics support should first include acknowledgement of self-concern and mitigation of guilt before any structured ethical reflection. Preventive measures for major events should focus on connectedness between all parties concerned, preventing inhumane care and burn-out.

UK consultants' experiences of the decision-making process around referral to intensive care: an interview study.

OBJECTIVE: The decision whether to initiate intensive care for the critically ill patient involves ethical questions regarding what is good and right for the patient. It is not clear how referring doctors negotiate these issues in practice. The aim of this study was to describe and understand consultants' experiences of the decision-making process around referral to intensive care. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews were analysed according to a phenomenological hermeneutical method. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Consultant doctors (n=27) from departments regularly referring patients to intensive care in six UK hospitals. RESULTS: In the precarious and uncertain situation of critical illness, trust in the decision-making process is needed and can be enhanced through the way in which the process unfolds. When there are no obvious right or wrong answers as to what ought to be done, how the decision is made and how the process unfolds is morally important. Through acknowledging the burdensome doubts in the process, contributing to an emerging, joint understanding of the patient's situation, and responding to mutual moral duties of the doctors involved, trust in the decision-making process can be enhanced and a shared moral responsibility between the stake holding doctors can be assumed. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the importance of trust in the decision-making process and how the relationships between the stakeholding doctors are crucial to support their moral responsibility for the patient. Poor interpersonal relationships can damage trust and negatively impact decisions made on behalf of a critically ill patient. For this reason, active attempts must be made to foster good relationships between doctors. This is not only important to create a positive working environment, but a mechanism to improve patient outcomes.

Ethical conflicts during the process of deciding about ICU admission: an empirically driven ethical analysis.

BACKGROUND: Besides balancing burdens and benefits of intensive care, ethical conflicts in the process of decision-making should also be recognised. This calls for an ethical analysis relevant to clinicians. The aim was to analyse ethically difficult situations in the process of deciding whether a patient is admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Analysis using the 'Dilemma method' and 'wide reflective equilibrium', on ethnographic data of 45 patient cases and 96 stakeholder interviews in six UK hospitals. ETHICAL ANALYSIS: Four moral questions and associated value conflicts were identified. (1) Who should have the right to decide whether a patient needs to be reviewed? Conflicting perspectives on safety/security. (2) Does the benefit to the patient of getting the decision right justify the cost to the patient of a delay in making the decision? Preventing longer-term suffering and understanding patient's values conflicted with preventing short-term suffering and provision of security. (3) To what extent should the intensivist gain others' input? Professional independence versus a holistic approach to decision-making. (4) Should the intensivist have an ongoing duty of care to patients not admitted to ICU? Short-term versus longer-term duty to protect patient safety. Safety and security (experienced in a holistic sense of physical and emotional security for patients) were key values at stake in the ethical conflicts identified. The life-threatening nature of the situation meant that the principle of autonomy was overshadowed by the duty to protect patients from harm. The need to fairly balance obligations to the referred patient and to other patients was also recognised. CONCLUSION: Proactive decision-making including advance care planning and escalation of treatment decisions may support the inclusion of patient autonomy. However, our analysis invites binary choices, which may not sufficiently reflect reality. This calls for a complementary relational ethics analysis.

Patients' experiences of discontentment one year after total knee arthroplasty- a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty is a common procedure with generally good results. However, there are still patients who are dissatisfied without known explanation. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction have previously been captured by quantitative designs, but there is a lack of qualitative studies regarding these patients' experiences. Qualitative knowledge might be useful in creating strategies to decrease the dissatisfaction rate. METHODS: Of the 348 patients who responded to a letter asking if they were satisfied or dissatisfied with their surgery, 61 (18%) reported discontent. After excluding patients with documented complications and those who declined to participate, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 44 patients. The interviews were analyzed according to qualitative content analysis. The purpose was to describe patients' experiences of discontentment 1 year after total knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: The patients experienced unfulfilled expectations and needs regarding unresolved and new problems, limited independence, and lacking of relational supports. They were bothered by pain and stiffness, and worried that changes were complications as a result of surgery. They described inability to perform daily activities and valued activities. They also felt a lack of relational supports, and a lack of respect and continuity, support from health care, and information adapted to their needs. CONCLUSION: Patient expectation seems to be the major contributing factor in patient discontentment after knee replacement surgery. This qualitative study sheds light on the on the meaning of unfulfilled expectations, in contrast to previous quantitative studies. The elements of unfulfilled expectations need to be dealt with both on the individual staff level and on the organizational level. For instance, increased continuity of healthcare staff and facilities may help to improve patient satisfaction after surgery.

Field-testing the Euro-MCD Instrument: Experienced outcomes of moral case deliberation.

BACKGROUND: Moral case deliberation is a form of clinical ethics support to help healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. There is a lack of evidence about what outcomes healthcare professionals experience in daily practice after moral case deliberations. The Euro-MCD Instrument was developed to measure outcomes, based on the literature, a Delphi panel, and content validity testing. To examine relevance of items and adequateness of domains, a field study is needed. AIM: To describe experienced outcomes after participating in a series of moral case deliberations, both during sessions and in daily practice, and to explore correlations between items to further validate the Euro-MCD Instrument. METHODS: In Sweden, the Netherlands, and Norway, healthcare institutions that planned a series of moral case deliberations were invited. Closed responses were quantitatively analyzed. The factor structure of the instrument was tested using exploratory factor analyses. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The study was approved in Sweden by a review board. In Norway and the Netherlands, data services and review boards were informed about the study. RESULTS: The Euro-MCD Instrument was completed by 443 and 247 healthcare professionals after four and eight moral case deliberations, respectively. They experienced especially outcomes related to a better collaboration with co-workers and outcomes about individual moral reflexivity and attitude, both during sessions and in daily practice. Outcomes were experienced to a higher extent during sessions than in daily practice. The factor structure revealed four domains of outcomes, which did not confirm the six Euro-MCD domains. CONCLUSION: Field-testing the Euro-MCD Instrument showed the most frequently experienced outcomes and which outcomes correlated with each other. When revising the instrument, domains should be reconsidered, combined with theory about underlying concepts. In the future, a feasible and valid instrument will be presented to get insight into how moral case deliberation supports and improves healthcare.

U.K. Intensivists' Preferences for Patient Admission to ICU: Evidence From a Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Deciding whether to admit a patient to the ICU requires considering several clinical and nonclinical factors. Studies have investigated factors associated with the decision but have not explored the relative importance of different factors, nor the interaction between factors on decision-making. We examined how ICU consultants prioritize specific factors when deciding whether to admit a patient to ICU. DESIGN: Informed by a literature review and data from observation and interviews with ICU clinicians, we designed a choice experiment. Senior intensive care doctors (consultants) were presented with pairs of patient profiles and asked to prioritize one of the patients in each task for admission to ICU. A multinomial logit and a latent class logit model was used for the data analyses. SETTING: Online survey across U.K. intensive care. SUBJECTS: Intensive care consultants working in NHS hospitals. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the factors investigated, patient's age had the largest impact at admission followed by the views of their family, and severity of their main comorbidity. Physiologic measures indicating severity of illness had less impact than the gestalt assessment by the ICU registrar. We identified four distinct decision-making patterns, defined by the relative importance given to different factors. CONCLUSIONS: ICU consultants vary in the importance they give to different factors in deciding who to prioritize for ICU admission. Transparency regarding which factors have been considered in the decision-making process could reduce variability and potential inequity for patients.

Important outcomes of moral case deliberation: a Euro-MCD field survey of healthcare professionals' priorities.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of empirical research regarding the outcomes of such clinical ethics support methods as moral case deliberation (MCD). Empirical research in how healthcare professionals perceive potential outcomes is needed in order to evaluate the value and effectiveness of ethics support; and help to design future outcomes research. The aim was to use the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome Instrument (Euro-MCD) instrument to examine the importance of various MCD outcomes, according to healthcare professionals, prior to participation. METHODS: A North European field survey among healthcare professionals drawn from 73 workplaces in a variety of healthcare settings in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The Euro-MCD instrument was used. RESULTS: All outcomes regarding the domains of moral reflexivity, moral attitude, emotional support, collaboration, impact at organisational level and concrete results, were perceived as very or quite important by 76%-97% of the 703 respondents. Outcomes regarding collaboration and concrete results were perceived as most important. Outcomes assessed as least important were mostly about moral attitude. 'Better interactions with patient/family' emerged as a new domain from the qualitative analysis. Dutch respondents perceived most of the outcomes as significantly less important than the Scandinavians, especially regarding emotional support. Furthermore, men, those who were younger, and physician-respondents scored most of the outcomes as statistically significantly less important compared with the other respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate a need for a broad instrument such as the Euro-MCD. Outcomes related to better interactions between professionals and patients must also be included in the future. The empirical findings raise the normative question of whether outcomes that were perceived as less important, such as moral reflexivity and moral attitude outcomes, should still be included. In the future, a combination of empirical findings (practice) and normative reflection (theories) will contribute to the revision of the instrument.

Impact of clinical ethics support on daily practice-First-line managers' experiences in the Euro-MCD project.

AIM: To explore first-line managers' experiences of what Moral Case Deliberation has meant for daily practice, to describe perceptions of context influence and responsibility to manage ethically difficult situations. BACKGROUND: In order to find measures to evaluate Moral Case Deliberation, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome instrument was developed and is now in the stage of revision. For this, there is a need of several perspectives, one of them being the managerial bird-eye perspective. METHOD: Eleven first-line managers at workplaces, participating in the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome instrument project, were interviewed and thematic analysis was applied. RESULTS: Managers' experiences were interpreted as enhanced ethical climate: a closer-knit and more emotionally mature team, morally strengthened individuals, as well as ethics leaving its marks on everyday work and morally grounded actions. Despite organizational barriers, they felt inspired to continue ethics work. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This study confirmed, but also added ethical climate aspects, such as morally grounded actions. Furthermore, adding ethical climate as a construct in the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome instrument should be considered. First-line managers need clear directives from their managers that ethics work needs to be prioritized for the good of both the staff and the patients.

Relational autonomy in the care of the vulnerable: health care professionals' reasoning in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD).

In Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), healthcare professionals discuss ethically difficult patient situations in their daily practice. There is a lack of knowledge regarding the content of MCD and there is a need to shed light on this ethical reflection in the midst of clinical practice. Thus, the aim of the study was to describe the content of healthcare professionals' moral reasoning during MCD. The design was qualitative and descriptive, and data consisted of 22 audio-recorded inter-professional MCDs, analysed with content analysis. The moral reasoning centred on how to strike the balance between personal convictions about what constitutes good care, and the perceived dissonant care preferences held by the patient. The healthcare professionals deliberated about good care in relation to demands considered to be unrealistic, justifications for influencing the patient, the incapacitated patient's nebulous interests, and coping with the conflict between using coercion to achieve good while protecting human dignity. Furthermore, as a basis for the reasoning, the healthcare professionals reflected on how to establish a responsible relationship with the vulnerable person. This comprised acknowledging the patient as a susceptible human being, protecting dignity and integrity, defining their own moral responsibility, and having patience to give the patient and family time to come to terms with illness and declining health. The profound struggle to respect the patient's autonomy in clinical practice can be understood through the concept of relational autonomy, to try to secure both patients' influence and at the same time take responsibility for their needs as vulnerable humans.

It's not all about moral reasoning: Understanding the content of Moral Case Deliberation.

BACKGROUND: Moral Case Deliberation is one form of clinical ethics support described as a facilitator-led collective moral reasoning by healthcare professionals on a concrete moral question connected to their practice. Evaluation research is needed, but, as human interaction is difficult to standardise, there is a need to capture the content beyond moral reasoning. This allows for a better understanding of Moral Case Deliberation, which may contribute to further development of valid outcome criteria and stimulate the normative discussion of what Moral Case Deliberation should contain. OBJECTIVE: To explore and compare the content beyond moral reasoning in the dialogue in Moral Case Deliberation at Swedish workplaces. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was applied for analysing audio-recordings of 70 periodic Moral Case Deliberation meetings at 10 Swedish workplaces. Moral Case Deliberation facilitators and various healthcare professions participated, with registered nurses comprising the majority. Ethical considerations: No objection to the study was made by an Ethical Review Board. After oral and written information was provided, consent to be recorded was assumed by virtue of participation. FINDINGS: Other than 'moral reasoning' (median (md): 45% of the spoken time), the Moral Case Deliberations consisted of 'reflections on the psychosocial work environment' to a varying extent (md: 29%). Additional content comprised 'assumptions about the patient's psychosocial situation' (md: 6%), 'facts about the patient's situation' (md: 5%), 'concrete problem-solving' (md: 6%) and 'process' (md: 3%). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that a restorative function of staff's wellbeing in Moral Case Deliberation is needed, as this might contribute to good patient care. This supports outcome criteria of improved emotional support, which may include relief of moral distress. However, facilitators need a strategy for how to proceed from the participants' own emotional needs and to develop the use of their emotional knowing to focus on the ethically difficult patient situation.

What Outcomes do Dutch Healthcare Professionals Perceive as Important Before Participation in Moral Case Deliberation?

BACKGROUND: There has been little attention paid to research on the outcomes of clinical ethics support (CES) or critical reflection on what constitutes a good CES outcome. Understanding how CES users perceive the importance of CES outcomes can contribute to a better understanding, use of and normative reflection on CES outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe the perceptions of Dutch healthcare professionals on important outcomes of moral case deliberation (MCD), prior to MCD participation, and to compare results between respondents. METHODS: This mixed-methods study used both the Euro-MCD instrument and semi-structured interviews. Healthcare professionals who were about to implement MCD were recruited from nursing homes, hospitals, psychiatry and mentally disabled care institutions. RESULTS: 331 healthcare professionals completed the Euro-MCD instrument, 13 healthcare professionals were interviewed. The outcomes perceived as most important were 'more open communication', 'better mutual understanding', 'concrete actions', 'see the situation from different perspectives', 'consensus on how to manage the situation' and 'find more courses of action'. Interviewees also perceived improving quality of care, professionalism and the organization as important. Women, nurses, managers and professionals in mentally disabled care rated outcomes more highly than other respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch healthcare professionals perceived the MCD outcomes related to collaboration as most important. The empirical findings can contribute to shared ownership of MCD and a more specific use of MCD in different contexts. They can inform international comparative research on different CES types and contribute to normative discussions concerning CES outcomes. Future studies should reflect upon important MCD outcomes after having experienced MCD.

Healthcare-professional patients' conceptions of being ill and hospitalised - a phenomenographic study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe the variation of conceptions of being ill and hospitalised, from the perspective of healthcare-professional patients. BACKGROUND: Previous literature focuses on either physicians' or nurses' experiences of being a patient, without aiming at determining a variation of ways of understanding that phenomena. Nor have we been able to identify any study reporting other healthcare professionals' experiences. DESIGN: This study has an inductive descriptive design. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals (n = 16), who had been hospitalised for at least two days. Phenomenographic data analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The feelings of security were based on knowledge, insight and trust, and acceptance of the healthcare system. Being exposed and totally dependent due to illness provoked feelings of vulnerability and insecurity. The patients used their knowledge to achieve participation in the care. The more severe they perceived their illness to be, the less they wanted to participate and the more they expressed a need for being allowed to surrender control. The patients' ideal picture of care was sometimes disrupted, and based on their experience, they criticised care and made suggestions that could contribute to general care improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare-professional patients have various conceptions of being ill and hospitalised. Based on the general nature of the many needs expressed, we believe that the insights provided in this study can be transferred so as to also be valid for lay patients. Possibly, an overhaul of routines for discharge planning and follow-up, and adopting a person-centred approach to care, can resolve some of the identified shortcomings. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results can be used for the purpose of developing knowledge for healthcare professions and for educational purposes.

Patients' experience of mood while waiting for day surgery.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim was to describe the moods experienced by people waiting for day surgery. BACKGROUND: Except for anxiety, there is a lack of knowledge about the moods experienced by patients while waiting for day surgery, as well as the impact of mood during the perioperative period. Preoperative anxiety is common and has multiple negative effects. A deeper knowledge of preoperative moods and how they are experienced is needed and may be useful for improving perioperative care. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive design. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 20) with adults waiting for day surgery in a Swedish university hospital. Data were analysed with inductive content analysis. RESULTS: The informants described a variety of moods and mood-influencing reasons. The main category that emerged was, 'feeling hope about regaining health as a help to balance mood' regardless of mood. This category was abstracted from the generic categories 'experiencing a harmonious mood' and 'experiencing a shifting mood'. The subcategories were 'feeling calm and at ease despite concerns and fear,' 'experiencing expectation,' 'feeling trust and confidence,' 'shifting between expectancy and anxiety,' 'feeling vulnerable and exposed, and 'feeling uncertainty'. CONCLUSIONS: The findings contribute to the knowledge about that regardless of mood, feeling hope about regaining health may help patients to balance their mood during the waiting period. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results can have implications with respect to developing and improving preoperative care, such as having clinicians extend offers of individual assistance and information during the waiting period to patients experiencing shifting mood. Instilling hopefulness in patients who are waiting for day surgery by means of clinical staff attitudes and interactions may help patients to develop healthy coping strategies and thereby improve their physical and emotional well-being.

'Just so you know, the patient is staff': healthcare professionals' perceptions of caring for healthcare professional-patients.

OBJECTIVE: To explore healthcare professionals' conceptions of the care of patients who are also healthcare professionals. DESIGN: Explorative, with a qualitative, phenomenographic approach. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 16 healthcare personnel within different professions (doctors, nurses, assistant nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists) were interviewed about the care of 32 patients who were themselves members of different healthcare professions, in one healthcare organisation in Sweden. RESULTS: The care of patients who are healthcare professionals was conceived in five different ways, as: usual, dutiful, prioritised and secure, insecure and responsive. An initial conception was that their care was usual, just as for any other patient, and also a perceived duty to treat them and to protect their right to be a patient--as any other patient. Exploring further, informants described that these patients did receive secure and prioritised care, as the informants experienced making a greater commitment, especially doctors giving privileges to doctor-patients. A conception of insecure care infused the informants' descriptions. This comprised of them feeling intimidated in their professional role, feeling affected by colleagues' stressful behaviour and ambiguity whether the healthcare professional-patient could be regarded as a competent professional. The deepest way of understanding care seemed to be responsive care, such as acknowledging and respecting the patient's identity and responding to their wishes of how treatment was to be met. CONCLUSIONS: Caring for healthcare professionals seems to trigger different ethical approaches, such as deontology and ethics of care. According to ethics of care, the findings may indeed suggest that these patients should be cared for just as any other patients would be, but only if this means that they are cared for as persons, that is, they are given 'person-centred care'. This would imply balancing between acknowledging the vulnerable patient in the colleague and acknowledging the identity of the colleague in the patient.