Working to Full Scope: The Reorganization of Nursing Work in Two Canadian Community Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work relationships between registered nurses (RNs) and practical nurses (LPNs) are changing as new models of nursing care delivery are introduced to create more flexibility for employers. In Canada, a team-based, hospital nursing care delivery model, known as Care Delivery Model Redesign (CDMR), redesigned a predominantly RN-based staffing model to a functional team consisting of fewer RNs and more LPNs. The scope of practice for LPNs was expanded, and unregulated health care assistants introduced. This study began from the standpoint of RNs and LPNs to understand their experiences working on redesigned teams by focusing on discourses activated in social settings. Guided by institutional ethnography, the conceptual and textual resources nurses are drawing on to understand these changing work relationships are explicated. We show how the institutional goals embedded in CDMR not only mediate how nurses work together, but how they subordinate holistic standards of nursing toward fragmented, task-oriented, divisions of 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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".