The changing division of labour between nurses and nursing assistants in New Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 1989, the professional nursing organization that represents nurses in New Brunswick adopted baccalaureate entry to practice in nursing. This decision coincided with a major restructuring of provincial health care. Consequently, there has been a reorganization of health care worker roles which affects nurses and nursing assistants. AIM: This paper explores the changing division of labour between nurses and nursing assistants in the province of New Brunswick, Canada. METHODS: The study used archival material, from the period 1978-1990, of three nursing organizations that played a significant role in initiating baccalaureate entry to practice. Interviews with 19 key people involved in the decision to upgrade nurse education were conducted. Data from the archival material and interviews were analysed jointly. FINDINGS: There are ongoing tensions between nurses and nursing assistants. Although nurses would like a support worker, they remain ambiguous about the role of nursing assistants in health care and which tasks should be delegated to this group. Nursing leaders are concerned about the ease with which some patient-related tasks are moved to nursing assistants. In the past, these concerns have led nursing leaders to attempt to limit nursing assistant responsibilities through both legislative means and ways of organizing nursing labour (primary nursing). As a result of health care reforms and baccalaureate entry to practice for nurses, nursing assistant responsibilities are currently expanding. CONCLUSION: Upgrading nurse education, which came into effect in 1996 with the closure of diploma schools in New Brunswick, is likely to entrench the role of nursing assistants in health care because of the economic value of their work during a period of restructuring and rationalization of health care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".