LAUSR

ABSTRACT Collaboration has achieved widespread acceptance as an indispensable element of healthcare delivery in recent decades, despite modest evidence for its impact on healthcare outcomes. Attempts to understand this seeming paradox have been based mostly in functionalist or conflict-theoretical approaches. Currently lacking, however, is an articulation of how collaborative ideals are embedded in broadly shared beliefs about what healthcare is and how it operates. In this article, we examine how language used in the CanMEDS competency framework and in two guides for Family Health Teams construct idealized versions of rational, autonomous physicians and primary care organizations, respectively. Informed by phenomenological sociology and neo-institutional theory, we characterize these documents as elements of formal structure, the putative “blueprints” for healthcare planning and activity. Drawing on this analysis, we argue that these documents and “collaborative” formal structures in general, not only function as tools to make healthcare more collaborative, but also create an appearance of “real” collaboration, independently of the realities of practice. We argue that they thus instill confidence that the current healthcare system functions according to deep-seated societal values of justice and progress. We conclude by emphasizing the potentially distorting influence of this on efforts to understand and improve healthcare.