‘The geriatric hospital felt like a backwater’: aspects of older people’s nursing in Britain, 1955–1980
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to examine the experiences of ward-level nurses who cared for older people in general hospitals between 1955-1980. BACKGROUND: There is very little published on the history of older adult nursing and no recent material from the United Kingdom. There are, however, the works of Cecily Hunter in Australia and Erica Roberts in Canada. It is the intention of this study to contribute to this important area of research. DESIGN: This is an oral history project in which 20 nurses who had worked on older adults ward between 1955-1980 were interviewed. METHODS: All the interviews were taped, transcribed and data-themed. Ethical clearance for the project was obtained from the University Ethics Committee and all participants were anonymised. RESULTS: Many of the nurses found the experience very difficult, though there were exceptions. Several participants had worked on older adults ward during their training and then had never wanted to return. Most described a paucity of resources and longevity of staff on the wards. CONCLUSIONS: Using the sociological theory of Erving Goffman, this article introduces a novel method of understanding nursing history, although his ideas have been used in medical history. The value of his theories for this study is in the identification of nurses as being part of the same system as the patients themselves. IMPLICATIONS FOR CONTEMPORARY POLICY, RESEARCH AND/OR PRACTICE: For nurses to care effectively for their patients, nurses themselves must be valued. Subordination and regimentation tend to dehumanise the carers which, in turn, dehumanises the cared for.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".