Organizing Practice: Nursing, the Medical Model, and Two Case Studies in Historical Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The medical model of clinical practice has long presented rather awkward challenges to the discipline of nursing. This study explores this challenge within nursing practice more deeply by examining two moments in the history of nursing practice: that before and that after the late 19th century professionalizing of the discipline. The first historical case study looks to the experiences of lay men and women staff caring for insane patients at the Friends Asylum in early 19th-century Philadelphia. This case study explores the workings of particular clinical encounters in day-today clinical practice. The second historical case study looks to the organizational efforts of pediatric nurse practitioners in the 1970s. This case study, set during a time when heuristic value of the medical model was already well-established, explores the tensions exerted by organized medicine and by organized nursing on the practicing nurse, and the efforts of both organizations to cloak their concerns surrounding professional legitimacy and control in the rhetoric of patient care and safety. These two seemingly disparate case studies suggest that the medical model has historically worked as an effective framework to contain the turmoil and turbulence that inevitably comes with the realities of both clinical practice and more organizationally focused disciplinary strategies. This study argues that the medical model has been an effective tool for thinking about all kinds and models of care for the sick. nurses appropriated the model to free them to do what they did best both before and after the development of modern models of practice. Hence, this study re-conceptualizes the medical model as both a source of power in nursing, and as a multidisciplinary, multidimensional organizational model of clinical and organizational practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".