MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1976823628 · doi:10.1353/bhm.0.0180

Making Room in the Clinic: Nurse Practitioners and the Evolution of Modern Health Care (review)

2009· article· en· W1976823628 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Smith

Notice bibliographique

RevueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueMedical History and Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHealth careContext (archaeology)NursingScholarshipMedicineNurse practitionersFamily medicineHistoryPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Making Room in the Clinic: Nurse Practitioners and the Evolution of Modern Health Care Susan L. Smith Julie Fairman . Making Room in the Clinic: Nurse Practitioners and the Evolution of Modern Health Care. Critical Issues in Health and Medicine. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2008. xiii + 255 pp. Ill. $45.95 (978-0-8135-4319-2). In the 1980s, I had an excellent health care provider, a nurse practitioner who worked at a health maintenance organization, or HMO, in Madison, Wisconsin. Ida Gear was in high demand among many of the women I knew because of her health care skills and caring approach. Thus, I was delighted to learn more about the history of this health care profession in Julie Fairman's new book on the history of nurse practitioners. Making Room in the Clinic: Nurse Practitioners and the Evolution of Modern Health Care not only documents the development of a new type of health care worker but sets it clearly within the wider context of nursing and medicine in the 1960s and 1970s. Fairman's history of the nurse practitioner movement adds an important dimension to scholarship on health care in the post–World War II era, a period of increasing interest among historians. Her insights into professional health relations illuminate some of the central themes in the history of modern health care. Fairman's study of nurse practitioners is attentive to the multiple perspectives regarding how best to provide optimum patient care. In particular, she analyzes the [End Page 235] ideas and concerns of doctors and organized medicine, including the American Medical Association, as well as those of nurses and organized nursing, including the American Nurses Association. Fairman demonstrates that the nurse practitioner movement was the product of nurse–physician relations and attempts at cooperation in both individual clinical practices and larger policy discussions. She shows that the nurse practitioner could be part of a collaborative health care practice with shared responsibility and equity among health professionals. In one especially interesting aspect of her study, Fairman draws on gender analysis to analyze the separate but related paths of nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Physician assistants, most of whom were men, emerged as complementary health workers within the field of medicine. Nurse practitioners, most of whom were women, were specialists with advanced training within the field of nursing. The two types of health care providers performed similar tasks and had similar degrees of autonomy in their work in this borderland between medicine and nursing. However, there were differences, as men became "less-than doctors" and women became "more-than nurses." Physician assistants were men looking for ways to use their health care skills without undertaking the lengthy physician training. Many of them had had military experience as medics and thus sought a parallel profession in civilian life. Nurse practitioners were women looking for more training and ways to expand their roles. Many of them had worked in areas of nursing that offered opportunities for specialization and independent work, such as public health nursing. Fairman's study of the coalition efforts of nurses and physicians in the 1960s and 1970s shows how and why the nurse practitioner movement emerged, but it also raises questions for future research. For example, sprinkled throughout the book are references to the fact that most nurse practitioners were white. Although Fairman does not analyze how "whiteness" shaped the emergence of this health care field, her work provides an excellent starting point for scholars. In addition, research is needed on how and why racialized minority women were drawn to the field and with what results. For instance, the Wisconsin nurse practitioner Ida Gear was an African American woman, and there were no doubt others across the nation. In sum, Fairman provides the first comprehensive investigation of the history of nurse practitioners and in the process reveals much about the complexities of professional health relations, clinical authority, and specialization. Her work makes the case for the benefits of collaboration when there is shared power between nurses and doctors and shows that although it is not easy, it can be done. [End Page 236] Susan L. Smith University of Alberta, Canada Copyright © 2009 The...

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,970
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,002
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,063
Tête enseignante GPT0,326
Écart entre enseignants0,263 · 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.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBulletin of the history of medicineMême sujetMedical History and ResearchTravaux en français237 207