An intersubjective understanding of mutual roles and responsibilities in the care process is needed to effectively co-create good care for residents of the care home.

This study offers insight into the perspectives of professionals, informal caregivers, and residents on their own role and responsibilities and that of others, and examines how this affects their co-creative relationships.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with professionals (n=9), informal caregivers (n=10), and residents (n=10) from two psychogeriatric wards. An inductive thematic analysis was then performed, using Margaret Urban Walker’s expressive- collaborative model of morality (1998) as a sensitizing concept.

Professionals and informal caregivers both view themselves as the main responsible for the resident’s wellbeing. Whereas professionals see themselves as experts on care for residents with psychogeriatric issues, informal caregivers see themselves as experts on the resident as a person. From these roles, both profess to know what is best for the resident. Further, professionals see themselves as someone naturally deserving trust due to their expertise, whereas they are seen by informal caregivers as someone who needs to win their trust. Informal caregivers see themselves as a warrantor for the residents wellbeing, whereas they are seen by professionals as someone who needs to relinquish control over care, so they can return to being the resident’s loved one. Although both professionals and informal caregivers ascribe a central role to the resident in the care process, their behaviors unintentionally urge residents towards a more passive role. Residents who are not generally compliant to the norms of the care home appear to view themselves as rebels. These (and more) differences in perceived roles and responsibilities lead to tensions in the co-creative relationships between professionals, informal caregivers, and residents.

Professionals, informal caregivers, and residents have differing perspectives on mutual roles and responsibilities in the care process, which hampers their co-creation of good care. This study implies that interventions aimed at improving the co-creation of good care may be focused on those involved first becoming acquainted with each other’s perceived roles and responsibilities.