Difficulties in acclimatizing feedback may explain why team members may refrain from disclosing regularly until they are referred to the feedback process and assimilate learning around the DBT team consultation principles. Although Swales  asserts that consultation agreements allow for a non-defensive attitude, it appeared that some clinicians felt vulnerable during their previous experience in consultation sessions. Research has previously identified such feedback difficulties  and the current study has shown that feedback complaints may be due to the fact that others feel judged at the beginning or are due to the amount of proposals from team members, sometimes overwhelming. Despite these challenges, the physicians involved in this study stressed their overwhelming desire to have consultation interviews in order to maintain their motivation to continue participating in DBT. BPD can often be comorbid with other mental illnesses (z.B. [32, 33]). In this study, the diversity of work experience within the orientation team helped clarify potentially more complex presentations; such as obtaining relevant knowledge about substance abuse or obtaining team knowledge from psychologists with knowledge about eating disorders. This raises interesting questions about whether a wider range of experiences in the makeup of the consulting team is necessary. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 DBT clinicians (nine women, two men) from three different counselling teams.
The research project used an interpretive concept of phenomenological analysis (IAP). The interview data were analysed in this context. 6. Error agreement: we agree in advance that we are all fallible and that we make mistakes. We agree that we have probably done everything we are accused of or have done part of it in order to be able to adopt a defensive attitude to prove our virtue or competence. Since we are fallible, there is a consensus that we will inevitably violate all these agreements, and once that is done, we will rely on each other to emphasize polarity and move on to a synthesis. For many participants, acclimatization to the model was facilitated by a growing familiarity with the fundamental principles of the DBT philosophy. The ability of the consultation team to facilitate learning and confidence was supported by the regular review of the DBT agreements, which is regularly reviewed by an agreement at each meeting. While participants often had early gaps in theoretical knowledge, many found the basic principles of DBT in terms of dementia and the nature of truth, in order to learn more about collaborative agreements. The resulting effect was to reduce the pressure, always correctly on the model and how the work should be completed. Consultation meetings are guided by a series of agreements proposing how physicians should interact with each other in consultation and which will be used in conjunction with a meeting program.
Swales  suggests that three of the agreements are particularly important for an appropriate learning and support atmosphere in consultation: “phenomenal empathy,” “deception” and “dialectic” agreements. With the “phenomenological empathy” agreement, clinicians seek interpretations of patients, members of their own team and others from a non-discerizing and empathetic perspective. Using the “deception” agreement, doctors recognize that all members of the consultation are subject to potential errors and agree to let go of defensive postures when they are accused of making mistakes in synthesising opposing views. Finally, doctors recognize with the “dialectical agreement” that there is no absolute truth, and doctors are encouraged to seek the truth in conflicting opinions in order to obtain the synthesis of both positions.