Purpose

This study aims to investigate how aspects of the sex/gender were scrutinized in a team’s production of clinical guidelines for psychiatric compulsory care and what the implications were for the final guidelines and for interprofessional learning.

Design/methodology/approach

The study is a case study, where interviews were conducted and a narrative analysis was used.

Findings

The results reflected how sex/gender arose in a discussion about gender differences when using restraining belts. Furthermore, discussions are presented where profession-specific experiences and knowledge about sex/gender appeared to stimulate interprofessional learning. However, the team’s learning about the complexity of sex/gender resulted in guidelines that emphasized aspects of power and focused on the individual patient. Thus, discussions leading to analysis and learning related to gender paradoxically produced guidelines that were gender-neutral.

Originality/value

The study highlights the potential interprofessional learning in discussions of sex/gender and its complex relation in medicine.