Introduction

This chapter sets out the background and rationale for the book; conceptual understanding of the term ‘ethics’; consideration of some of the major ethical theories; conceptual understanding of the terms ‘personal ethics’, ‘professional ethics’ and ‘interprofessional ethics’; aims and approach of the book; conceptual framework for the book with a mapping to book parts; and a brief introduction to each of the parts and chapters. The remaining chapters in the book provide further insights into these concepts and understandings, drawing on the ‘lived experiences’ of the authors and/or other professionals working in person-centred professions. The final chapter pulls together the main themes of Chapters Two to Nineteen, and proposes a revised conceptual framework for understanding the dynamics of personal, professional and interprofessional ethics and a possible way forward in relation to research and practice.

Interprofessional working

A stimulus for writing this book was the chapter authors’ experiences of working in interprofessional contexts and the importance of ethical considerations. There appear to be a number of drivers towards greater interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in the caring professions. Internationally, there has been a move towards the promotion and implementation of approaches to improve interagency and interprofessional working practices with children and adults. For example, in the UK, the integration of public services has been advocated as a way of addressing system failings, achieving better outcomes for service users and, potentially, cost savings (Brown and White, 2006).

Models of ‘shared care’, a term which appears to encapsulate a range of collaborative and integrated approaches to healthcare and treatment, have developed in a number of countries, including the US, UK, Australia and Canada (see for example Kelly et al, 2011; Moore et al, 2012). Furthermore, management structures may result in individuals being managed by professionals from a different discipline. This can create the potential for lack of role clarity, uncertainty and disagreement due to differences in aims, priorities, working style, values, legislative frameworks and so on. For example, Zwarenstein et al (2009), after a review of the literature of interventions designed to improve IPC, suggested that although IPC was promising in terms of the healthcare of service users, very few organisations were effectively implementing it.