Serving two (or more) masters: accomplishing autonomous nursing practice in chronic disease management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of professional autonomy has figured prominently in literature that addresses nursing's project of professionalization. Nursing's capacity to determine the nature and scope of its practice is related in important ways to the location of practice. Within highly structured environments such as acute-care hospitals, nurses' professional autonomy has frequently been contested yet is often implicated by nursing's elite as a necessary condition in the construction of quality work environments. Professional concerns and management practices related to retaining experienced nurses to support sustainability in healthcare delivery systems' impact on the ability of nurses to practice autonomously. Our paper focuses on the emerging field of practice of chronic disease management. We describe the complex relationships negotiated by a nurse in a theoretically autonomous practice setting as she seeks to fulfil both the requirements of a research protocol designed by physician experts representing the specialty of renal medicine, and her professional obligations to respond to the expressed needs of patients with early-stage renal disease. We utilize a case study approach to explore particular contemporary concerns that nurses in practice confront as they attempt to accomplish professional relationships with patients central to achieving prescribed medical outcomes where nursing practice, as an element of the achievement of those outcomes, is constituted as absent or unacknowledged by the medical researchers leading the project. Implications for nursing's discourses on the professional project of autonomy will be discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".