MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1976021629 · doi:10.1111/j.1466-7657.2005.00465.x

Nursing Against the Odds: How Health Care Cost Cutting, Media Stereotypes, and Medical Hubris Undermine Nurses and Patient care

2005· article· en· W1976021629 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jane Robinson

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Nursing Review · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth and Conflict Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHubrisPoliticsHealth careNursingOddsMedicineSociologyPolitical scienceHistoryLawClassics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Nursing Against the Odds: How Health Care Cost Cutting, Media Stereotypes, and Medical Hubris Undermine Nurses and Patient care Suzanne, Gordon , 2005 ; ILR Press, an imprint of Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York and London : 489 pages. ISBN: 0-8014-3976-0 . Nursing against the Odds should be on every nurse's booklist and is essential reading for anyone remotely interested in the politics of nursing. Suzanne Gordon is an award-winning journalist who has written two previous books on aspects of nursing as well as numerous articles in the American and Canadian press. She is Assistant Adjunct Professor at the University of California at San Francisco School of Nursing and also edits with Siobhan Nelson (Editor of Nursing Inquiry) a series of books on The Culture and Politics of Health Care Work. In addition to this impeccable pedigree, Suzanne Gordon writes in an immensely knowledgeable and readable style. She is up-to-date with all the current issues that preoccupy nurses and she writes about them with deep understanding and lucidity. Perhaps her greatest credit is that she covers all the arguments, both for and against a particular approach to every issue. In doing so she dispels any notion that this is yet another book about ‘whingeing nurses’. In the first of three sections she covers Nurses and Doctors at Work and explores all the well-worn themes in a fresh and lively style. Gordon's approach to the second section, The Media and Nursing, is fairly novel. She starts with how children are imbued with certain stereotypes of nurses through books at the beginning of their lives. She goes onto adult forms of indoctrination (for example, Nurse Ratched in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest and Sarah Gamp in Martin Chuzzlewit) and then examines nurses in TV and film. In the third and most important section, Hospitals and Nursing, Gordon is at her best when writing about the impact of cost cutting and hospital re-structuring on nursing. A typical example comes from her own experience. When asked by a critical care journal to write about patient-centred care, she found that the nurses interviewed were less than enthusiastic, even hostile, to the concept. Gordon soon discovered why: I didn’t have to dig far before I discovered that patient-centred or patient-focused care was a central building stone in the restructuring and reengineering of health care. It was one of those Orwellian formulations used to describe its opposite. Under the guise of patient-centred, patient-focused care, nurses quickly told me, they were losing their ability to centre on the patient and were increasingly asked to focus on profit (p. 229). In her Conclusion, Changing the Odds, Gordon considers the various options available to address the current crisis in nursing, whilst recognizing that many of nurses’ would-be solutions are ‘off limits’. In these final pages Gordon underestimates the immense political forces in the USA that oppose any change to its inequitable and hugely wasteful health care system (think of Hillary Clinton failing dismally to achieve health care reform during her husband's presidency). She also tends to view the rest of the world through somewhat rose-tinted spectacles. But these are small complaints about an immensely courageous book.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,904
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,803

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,054
Tête enseignante GPT0,461
Écart entre enseignants0,407 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Nursing ReviewMême sujetHealth and Conflict StudiesTravaux en français237 207