Five pathways into one profession: Fifty years of debate on differentiated nursing practice.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING Nursing Inquiry Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-12 DOI:10.1111/nin.12631
Hugo Schalkwijk, Martijn Felder, Pieterbas Lalleman, Manon S Parry, Lisette Schoonhoven, Iris Wallenburg
{"title":"Five pathways into one profession: Fifty years of debate on differentiated nursing practice.","authors":"Hugo Schalkwijk, Martijn Felder, Pieterbas Lalleman, Manon S Parry, Lisette Schoonhoven, Iris Wallenburg","doi":"10.1111/nin.12631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The persistence of multiple educational pathways into the nursing profession continues to occupy scholars internationally. In the Netherlands, various groups within the Dutch healthcare sector have tried to differentiate nursing practice on the basis of educational backgrounds for over 50 years. Proponents argue that such reforms are needed to retain bachelor-trained nurses, improve quality of care and strengthen nurses' position in the sector. Opponents have actively resisted reforms because they would mainly benefit bachelor-trained nurses and neglect practical experience and technical skills. This historical case study aims to provide insight in this apparent stalemate. Our analysis of this debate is informed by literature on institutional work and current debates within the historiography of nursing. This study contributes to a better understanding of this contemporary debate by examining a broader timeframe than is usually studied, and by highlighting nurses' roles in complex processes of change. We argue that, rather than being stuck in their professional development, different groups of nurses have forged their own path forward in their professional development, albeit via different strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":49727,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":"e12631"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12631","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The persistence of multiple educational pathways into the nursing profession continues to occupy scholars internationally. In the Netherlands, various groups within the Dutch healthcare sector have tried to differentiate nursing practice on the basis of educational backgrounds for over 50 years. Proponents argue that such reforms are needed to retain bachelor-trained nurses, improve quality of care and strengthen nurses' position in the sector. Opponents have actively resisted reforms because they would mainly benefit bachelor-trained nurses and neglect practical experience and technical skills. This historical case study aims to provide insight in this apparent stalemate. Our analysis of this debate is informed by literature on institutional work and current debates within the historiography of nursing. This study contributes to a better understanding of this contemporary debate by examining a broader timeframe than is usually studied, and by highlighting nurses' roles in complex processes of change. We argue that, rather than being stuck in their professional development, different groups of nurses have forged their own path forward in their professional development, albeit via different strategies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一个职业的五种途径:关于差异化护理实践的五十年争论。
进入护理行业的多种教育途径的持续存在一直困扰着国际学者。在荷兰,50 多年来,荷兰医疗保健部门的各种团体一直试图根据教育背景区分护理实践。支持者认为,为了留住接受过本科培训的护士、提高护理质量和加强护士在该行业中的地位,有必要进行此类改革。反对者则积极抵制改革,因为改革主要有利于受过学士培训的护士,而忽视了实践经验和技术技能。本历史案例研究旨在深入探讨这一明显的僵局。我们对这一争论的分析参考了有关机构工作的文献以及当前护理史学界的争论。本研究通过考察比通常研究更广泛的时间范围,并通过强调护士在复杂的变革过程中的作用,有助于更好地理解这一当代辩论。我们认为,不同的护士群体并没有在其职业发展中停滞不前,而是通过不同的策略在其职业发展中开辟了自己的道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nursing Inquiry
Nursing Inquiry 医学-护理
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
61
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Inquiry aims to stimulate examination of nursing''s current and emerging practices, conditions and contexts within an expanding international community of ideas. The journal aspires to excite thinking and stimulate action toward a preferred future for health and healthcare by encouraging critical reflection and lively debate on matters affecting and influenced by nursing from a range of disciplinary angles, scientific perspectives, analytic approaches, social locations and philosophical positions.
期刊最新文献
Nurses' Advocacy in Intensive Care: What Insights Can Nurses' Experiences During the Pandemic Reveal? On Skin, Monsters and Boundaries: What The Silence of the Lambs can Teach Nurses About Abjection. The Everyday Phenomenology of Bedside Insight: A Response to Shira Birnbaum. Thinking Theoretically in Nursing Research-Positionality and Reflexivity in an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) Study. Health Professionals on Cross-Sectoral Collaboration Between Mental Health Hospitals and Municipalities: A Critical Discourse Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1