‘Teach, reduce and discharge’: Community nurses’ textual production of ‘independence’ and the coordination of discharge from home care services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past three decades, the Canadian healthcare system has undergone significant reform and restructuring. As a result, healthcare and healthcare costs are relocated from hospitals to the community (McGregor, 2001). Text-based technology is increasingly used to standardize care and contain healthcare spending. This paper examines an example of a text-based technology used in the School Health Support Services programme for students with diabetes in Ontario, Canada. Using institutional ethnography, the inquiry starts with parents’ concerns regarding the premature termination of nursing care for their children with diabetes at school. The exploration shows how these parents’ concerns are hooked into the institutional work of assessment for service discharge conducted by the Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) care coordinators. The analysis shows how the institutional category of ‘independence’ coordinates the service discharge work of the CCAC care coordinators with that of the nursing work of community nurses at school. The activation of the category of ‘independence’ by the nurses mediates their work, orienting their focus away from providing direct nursing care, and towards transferring primary care to children with diabetes. Children doing diabetes self-care work at school is then written up in nursing texts to stand in for children’s ability to manage diabetes ‘independently’. The textual production of ‘independence’ enables the next institutional course of action, that is, the discharge of children from nursing services at school. In this process, children with diabetes are drawn into doing the discharge work that ultimately serves the cost-containment interests of the institution. This institutional process also functions to obscure important actualities: It obscures how children’s ‘independence’ is co-created on a daily basis with their parents and relies on their parents’ work, and it discounts the significance of children with diabetes coming to their own embodied and emotional readiness for diabetes self-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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".