Talk:Nurse/Archive 1

Major Changes
I have started some of the changes discussed below including moving information & images between the Nurse & Nursing articles as well as to RN & LPN articles as no one seems to care enough to comment against this. There have been a couple of complaints about dividing the article topics by country but there are major differences in education & legal regulation, etc., in various countries. I hope people from other countries, including UK, Canada, Australia, Phillipines, New Zealand, etc. will start contributing more information related to Nurses & Nursing. THB

Greetings! Im from the Philippines, and this is the first time i came to this discussion area though I have been to Wikipedia a number of times. As for Nurse(s) in my country, I will try to make a contribution soon as time permits. I am currently a Nurse Instructor for Angeles University Foundation and I would just like to say that I am pleased to find people like all of you here going out of your way to make an important contribution. Mabuhay! --WFNicdao 11:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Section on RN & LPN
Should the sections on RN & LPN be reduced to a few lines each and the rest of the information moved to the separate articles on RN & LPN?THB 00:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. --Vincej 10:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I also think that the differences in RN and LPN should be given their own sections --Pea-Ta 23:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nursing and Nurse articles
Shouldn't this article be merged with nursing? Alex.tan 14:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that having both Nurse and Nursing is good. This Nurse article talks about the practice of nursing (currently focused on U.S. but someday may have a more international scope) whereas that Nursing article talks (or will talk) more about the science of nursing. Once the wikipedia has more nursing articles, the separation will become more important. Matt 16:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * We need more clarity about the difference between the Nurse and Nursing article. I am not sure that the distinction between science and practice is distinct enough. We should decide which article should contain the following:
 * Definition of nursing
 * Development of the profession
 * Educational paths to becoming a nurse
 * History of nursing (I have just moved this to the nursing article as it seemed to fit better there but maybe not)
 * Types of nursing - specialities. (Currently types and ranks of nurses is in nurse and is therfore more about career structure, whereas the article nursing gives a long list of different specialties in nursing. --Vincej 14:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

From the physician article: A physician is a person who practices medicine. See that article for more information on what physicians do in their practices; this article focuses on physician training and regulation.


 * Definition of nursing NURSING
 * Definition of nurse: NURSE
 * Development of the profession: NURSING
 * Educational paths to becoming a nurse NURSE
 * History of nursing NURSING
 * Types of nursing - specialities. NURSING

THB 00:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Americacentric
I have seldom seen such an Americacentric article!!!! This is just appalling. There are nurses in other parts of the world too...

Refdoc 16:22, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)~


 * Sure there are. If you have the info, feel free to add it. :^) &mdash;Frecklefoot 16:34, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ontario isn't part of the United States. Although this article is a little skewed to the U.S., a lot of the content is also applicable to other countries. I don't think that putting the "United States" heading in is very helpful unless it is used to clearly distinguish one section of the article from another. Matt 17:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Matt,
 * I agree that most of this article is applicable across the world, however the section on career structure was structured towards the United States (though I obviously missed Ontario in the text!), or at least a restricted number of places. As an example, the career titles or structure are not relevant in Australia or New Zealand, let alone many less-developed countries.
 * For this reason I put the United States information under a separate heading; If it is applicable to Canada (or Mexico) it may be worth changine the subhead to "North America". Career/profession/workforce structure in nursing varies considerably throughout the world. Further subheads could be used to give an idea of the structure elsewhere.
 * For this reason I put the United States information under a separate heading; If it is applicable to Canada (or Mexico) it may be worth changine the subhead to "North America". Career/profession/workforce structure in nursing varies considerably throughout the world. Further subheads could be used to give an idea of the structure elsewhere.
 * For this reason I put the United States information under a separate heading; If it is applicable to Canada (or Mexico) it may be worth changine the subhead to "North America". Career/profession/workforce structure in nursing varies considerably throughout the world. Further subheads could be used to give an idea of the structure elsewhere.


 * --DaveB 02:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have added a section on the British situation, hope it decreases the "Americacentric" tangent this article has.

I have added an article about Nursing in Australia.adamm 08:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Can males be nurses? I am not a native English speaker and would be thankful if such information was included in the definition (first section). In my language, there are "sestre" (f) and "medicinski tehniki" (m, medical technicians). --Eleassar777 07:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, nurses can be male or female and do the same job. --Vincej 14:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I am a nurse who happens to be male. I worked hard for the title of "Sister"! ;) adamm 09:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a male ICU nurse in the US. I find it interresting to learn that in some areas nurses are called "sister". Is this related to the Catholic church? Using "sister" to address a nurse in the US would be highly frowned upon would be considered humorous and even insulting - especially to male nurses. In the US, nursing is becoming less stereotyped as a "female" role.


 * Sister is a rapidly antiquating term for charge nurse. We're moving away from sister now, even for the female nurses, favouring "charge nurse" or "ward manager"... --John24601 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In Australia in former times Registered Nurses used the courtesy title "Sister", whilst Enrolled Nurses were known as "Nurse". This is no longer the case, the term is considered sexist by some, and outmoded by others. I happen to like it, and was proud to use it in the '80s. Adamm 08:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was interested to read a question about why a nurse is refert to as sister. History teaches us that nursing often took place in religious monesteries, the nuns were adressed as sisters and the monks as brothers. In the Netherlands male nurses were called "brothers" when I did my training. When I emigrated to Australia and worked in a hospital and a nursing home I was called mister sister! The brothers in the monesteries did all that was necessary to assist the patient back to health. They nursed, they prepared medicines from their herbal garden and they performed small operations. A really holistic approach, which went gradually out of fashion by the splitting of the holistic care into nurses, pharmacists and doctors. [hankawl, 20 July 2006]

New nurse pic
Removed the following image. Too many pictures in the page. --DuKot 20:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * hmm... there were three. I don't think that's too many. Besides, it's good to have a picture of a nurse that was taken within the past 30 years. Matt 03:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this picture is suited for the article. I think the picture of a nurse in action ( ie nursing a patient) is more appropriate than just a picture a girl smiling. --DuKot 02:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edits
I want to apologise about my typos - especially when tagging updates. Most embarrassing.

On another issue, I note that a person who has also been editing this article has been advocating that the form and usage matches that developed for use in describing medicine and medical schools. I feel a little torn about this, on the one hand I can see the value in consistency between Wikipedia articles; and on the other hand it is a prime example of the paternalistic attitude that just because something is done a particular way in or for medicine that nursing has to follow suit, accommodate and conform. The inference is that nursing is somehow lesser in value and cannot be self determinant.

The person concerned may feel surprised by my comment especially when they will (I am sure) have been acting with the noblest of intentions. However, nursing is a distinct albeit complementary profession to medicine and as such has its own perspectives. I think that includes this article evolving with contributions by nurses themselves from around the globe rather than having to conform to a certain pattern mandated for use by another professional group. adamm 01:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, DaveB has stated that a number of my contributions as not being factually based, and has removed them. Well, that's the nature of Wikipedia. However...

It is a matter of fact in Australia (at least) that nurses as a professional group are consistently ranked as being the most trustworthy. See | here, where it quotes that "Nurses came top of the 2005 annual Roy Morgan survey of professional ethics and honesty, as they have every year since being included on the survey in 1994. In the survey of 640 people Australia-wide, 89% scored nurses as the most ethical and honest occupational group, followed by pharmacists (84%), doctors (79%) and teachers (74%)."

Secondly, the Australian Medical Association, which is, after all, nothing more than a union (oh no, surely not!), is fiercely antagonistic to the development of nurse practitioners, divining that this development is a threat to the general practitioner, calling it second rate care. This is more than just a "point of view" from some silly old nurse. That the AMA has a policy statement regarding nurse practitioners but not podiatrists who practice invasive foot surgery is breath taking; hence my reference to the evolution of nursing to include nurse practitioners being analogous to the development of podiatric surgery. "Stick to the facts" - indeed.

"The transfer of nursing education to the university sector was an outstanding achievement of the visionary leaders in Australian nursing, and was opposed by the medical hierarchy who foresaw the development of a highly trained professional as a threat. Many nurses themselves opposed the transfer on the grounds that "hands on experience in hospitals" would be lost. It should be recalled, however, that this not surprising given the then generally unfair status of women in Australian society, and the societal view of nursing as being a "female" profession, and dominance of males in medicine. This has significantly changed over the past 40 years." is not simply a point of view, although it may seem to be and on reflection I agree that it is not appropriate to the article. My reason for including this is that the transfer of education was not universally endorsed by nurses themselves in this country, and it is still subject to controversy. There is also wealth of feminist literature available in this country that will attest to the hegemony experienced by nursing and nurses. adamm 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Adamm, I watch this article pretty closely but the whole episode above I missed. The material was indeed very POV and I toned it down and put it back in the article but since I have the same POV as you it probably still retains some. It might help if you find a source for the info--there are many.

I also think it would be really nice to have a bit about nursing being the most trustworthy profession. The polls in the US show the same thing except right after 9/11/01 when the police and firemen were the heroes in the mass media. THB 03:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi THB,

Thanks for trimming it down and making it more relevant. I'm happy to be referenced as the source for this material as it is based upon discussions in a professional context over the past 25 years (2006 Ferrier, J.A., RN, DipAppSci(P&O), CertGN, CertN(OR), GradDipN(Periop), PGradDipHSM, MHA, MRCNA, AHFMA.)  I lived through the transition to university training, having "trained" in a hospital based course, but with the extreme good fortune to have already completed an allied health degree. I had the best of both worlds, solid academic background and undeniablely excellent clinical application. The resistance by nurses themselves is not likely to be documented anywhere because, as history has proved, their fear was unfounded. Nevertheless, many hospital trained registered nurses feared that their training would be devalued. It was not unrealistic. Admission to the Royal College of Nursing Australia in the late 1980s was elitist - one had to have a university qualification, and qualifications obtained before your basic RN training "didn't count". adamm 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppression of nursing? Why not consider
 * "The history of nursing is well supplied with evidence of both oppressed group behaviour and administrative and medical oppression but there is very little evidence of nurses seeking to empower themselves as a group." Tracey McDonald  referenced 25 February 2006
 * "Nursing as an occupation has had to deal with gender-specific inequality for a long time. Nursing was established in Australia during a period of male dominance, patriachialism and female subservience when a women’s social position in relation to men was replicated by nurses’ subordinate position in relation to doctors. Nursing was fundamentally regarded as "women’s work" leading to a perception of nurses as "ideal women" and doctors as "ideal men". The development of nursing as an exclusively female occupation has therefore had major ramifications for its status and public image. Unlike the male oriented medical profession, whose work was highly visible, widely recognised and thus renumerated accordingly, there was widespread failure of people to distinguish between the skilled and unique work of nurses and the traditional tasks required of them." Jacqueline Bloomfield referenced 25 February 2006
 * RURAL AND REMOTE NURSING SUMMIT REPORT NSW Health Department recognises that oppression (perceived or real) is one of many barriers to nursing recruitment to regional areas.

It's interesting that even a cursory Google search can provide references that one may feel are otherwise POV adamm 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to be sorry I started looking at this particular issue: the | Nurse Quacktitioner from Mattel. Quod erat demonstrandum. adamm 06:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a whole section on opposition by physicians to nurses "upgrading". The AMA in the US has strongly opposed any kind of nurse practitioner role and even invented the physician assistant role to try to control what they see as "encroachment" on their monopoly. (PA's usually have only a bachelor's. THB 21:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head: the vast majority of nurses and doctors are primarily concerned with the welfare of patients: the opposition to nurse practitioners is, in my view, an industrial issue. In Australia nurse practitioners are (and should be) complementary to the health system and should not be seen as a replacement of the valid role of general medical practioners. Also, in Victoria at least new nurse practitioners must undergo a course to Masters level. adamm 20:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ed

Non-Nurses
What a terrible phrase. I am changing it to "Other Healthcare Workers"


 * Agreed. JFW | T@lk  11:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

editors who are nurses...
...can identify themselves voluntarily by putting  on their user pages. Not that we have to do that kind of thing just because the doctors do... :) &#8592;Hob 21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Other healtcare workers
Is there a need to state after every type of worker... "are not nurses"

Deleted!!

Also it is the most american-centric piece of writing I have come across!

Panthro 16:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that the heading is demoted so that the paragraph comes under the USA section, as it does refer to the USA system. --Vince 13:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, as it has been changed..... Panthro 16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. However, I am wondering why Certified Nursing Assistants get their own article whereas health care assistants, which looks to be virtually the same job, does not. Perhaps HCAs need their own article or else the Certified Nursing Assistants article needs to be amended to make it less USA based. --Vince 09:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge

 * See also the parallel discussion at Talk:Nursing

I have added a merge request - it is simply silly having both, especially as this page is becoming too long - perhaps the section on 'countries' need to be individual pages, and these can each be part of a new category Ianguy 05:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it is a democracy, what about a vote.

Support - although done properly! Panthro 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Merge into main article Nursing and split off detailed stuff into nursing by country. I see the UK has already started on that route. --Mereda 08:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Nurses practice nursing, physicians practice medicine. Wikipedia has one article entitled "physician" and another entitled "medicine". They shouldn't be merged and nor should nurse and nursing. Today nursing is a well established academic subject and many who conduct research in nursing are not nurses. Wadsa 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Support I think the pages have now developed in a way that makes this sensible. Although medical doctors and medicine have separate pages, a number of other professions do not split their pages in this way. The general reader is likely to think of nurses and nursing as inextricably linked (perhaps less so for medicine and physicians?). I think there is sufficient overlap and it would put an end to the argument of which information should go in which. Agree also to having nursing by country separated. It's a huge job though! --Vince 13:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose "Nursing" covers universal topics while the "Nurse" article contains information regarding education and legal regulation, which varies by country. I can see a general article on Nurse and separate articles on the education and regulation in each country. However, when there is not even a good SECTION on the history of nursing, I think effort could be better spent in increasing the quantity and quality of information. We've already been through this once and it was decided to break the articles into "Nurse" and "Nursing". Unfortunately, most of my time here is spent keeping things in proper categories and adding nursing-related categories to articles on people and schools that don't have them. I do hope that a consensus can be reached rather than a mere majority vote. THB 23:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)