Studiet har haft til formål at undersøge, hvorledes to fagprofessioners rolleopfattelse påvirker deres arbejde og indbyrdes relation inden for klinisk anæstesi. Der er valgt et kvalitativt afsæt med et salutogenetisk perspektiv med hovedvægt på at skabe et billede af forventningerne til den gode fagprofessionelle og det gode samarbejde. Samtidig afdækkes forskellige potentielle konfliktfelter. Rolleopfattelsen fremstår som et handlingsideal, der har fælles træk uafhængigt af professionsbaggrund. Der synes at være god overensstemmelsen mellem professionernes forventninger til rolle og mandat. Dette kan danne basis for et godt samarbejde, men samtidig skabe grobund for konflikter. Der afdækkes en anerkendelse af værdien af begge fagprofessioners spidskompetencer i mødet med patienten. Typen af samspil mellem professionerne er afhængig af opgavernes karakter samt deltagernes personlighed og erfaringer. Overføring af opgaver til den anden profession kan opfattes som en provokation mod professionernes integritet. Hierarki og revirbeskyttelse synes at kunne give anledning til en vis rigiditet i arbejdets organisering. Viden og færdigheder udveksles på tværs af professionerne. Dette islæt af empowerment synes at resultere i en unik kollegialitet og binding. Ingen af de fagprofessionelle ønsker at arbejde i en monofaglig kontekst. Men den udtalte overlapning kan give anledning til mellemmenneskelige udfordringer i forhold til både at give hinanden rum samtidig med, at man kræver plads til egne kompetencer og værdier.

The study has had the purpose of examining how the self-perception of two professions affects their work and mutual relation in the area of clinical anaesthesia. A qualitative starting point with a salutogenetic perspective has been chosen with emphasis on creating a clear picture of expectations about what is good professionally and what is good teamwork. Concurrently, different potential areas of conflict are uncovered. The perception of roles appears as an ideal about how to act, which has common features independently of professional background. There appears to be good accordance between the different professions and their expectations of roles and mandate. This can create a basis for good co-operation, but at the same be a cause of conflict. Acknowledgement of the value of both professions’ core competences in dealing with patients is uncovered. The type of teamwork between the professions is dependent on the character of the assignment as well as the participants’ personality and experience. Transferral of assignments to the other profession can be seen as provocation against the integrity of both professions. Hierarchy and turf-protection appears to give rise to certain rigidity in the organisation of the work. Knowledge and skills are exchanged across the professions. This strain of empowerment seems to result in a unique collegiate spirit and binding. Neither of the two professions want to work in a mono professional context. But the pronounced overlap can give rise to inter-human challenges in connection to giving each other space while also demanding room for one’s own competencies and values.