MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careContext (archaeology)NursingScholarshipMedicineNurse practitionersFamily medicineHistoryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from 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...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the history of medicineSame topicMedical History and ResearchFrench-language works237,207