Exploring risk in professional nursing practice: an analysis of work refusal and professional risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores risk in professional nursing practice. Professional risk refers to the threat of professional discipline if it is found that a registered nurse has violated professional nursing practice standards. We argue professional risk is socially constructed and understood differently by nurse regulatory bodies, unions, professional associations and frontline nurses. Regulatory bodies emphasize professional accountability of nurses; professional associations focus on system problems in health-care; unions undertake protecting nurses' right to health and safety; and frontline nurses experience fear and uncertainty in their attempt to interpret practice standards to avoid professional discipline. Perspectives of professional risk are investigated by analyzing three professional nursing bodies' views of professional codes governing the right of nurses to refuse unsafe work assignments. The workplace dynamics surrounding work refusal experienced by frontline nurses are illustrated primarily through the lens of the 2003 SARS influenza outbreak in Ontario, Canada. We conclude that frontline nurses in Ontario are required to manage risk by following professional protocols prioritizing patient care and professional accountability which disregard the systemic, unpredictable and hazardous circumstances in their everyday practice. Moreover, we argue professional protocols cannot anticipate every eventuality in clinical practice creating the fear of professional discipline for nurses.
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 | 0.037 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".