Embracing the wild profusion: A Foucauldian analysis of the impact of healthcare standardization on nursing knowledge and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standardization has emerged as the dominant principle guiding the organization and provision of healthcare, with standards resultantly shaping how nurses conceptualize and deliver patient care. Standardization has been critiqued as homogenizing diverse patient experiences and diminishing nurses' skills and critical thinking; however, there has been limited examination of the philosophical implications of standardization for nursing knowledge and practice. In this manuscript, I draw on Foucault's philosophy of order and categorization to inform an analysis of the consequences of healthcare standardization for the profession of nursing. I utilize three exemplars to illustrate the impact of the primacy of standardized thinking and practices on nurses, patients and families: pain assessments using the 0-10 pain scale; patient triage emergency departments through the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale; and determination of cause of death within the context of the current opioid crisis. Through each exemplar, I demonstrate that standardization reductively constrains nursing knowledge and the health and healthcare experiences of patients and populations. I argue that the centrality of standardization must be re-envisioned to embrace the complexity of health and more effectively and meaningfully frame nursing knowledge and practice within healthcare systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".