|This is the talk page of an article that has been merged and now redirects to the page:
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions and edit requests should take place at:
Merged page is maintained in order to preserve attributions.
|This redirect is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article was nominated for merging with Nursing on 31 July 2011. The result of the discussion was merge Nurse and Nursing practice into Nursing.|
- 1 Male Nurses
- 2 Capitalisation
- 3 Nursing Portal
- 4 Timeline of nursing history
- 5 Proposed addition to this article:cartoon nurses
- 6 Country articles
- 7 Other healthcare workers
- 8 Physician assistants - AHPs?
- 9 Looks much better
- 10 Old discussion
- 11 Format
- 12 African information
- 13 References
- 14 Lede
- 15 International Labor Organization
- 16 The Nurse article and WikiProject Nursing: getting back to basics
- 17 New head image
- 18 Removed image
- 19 Sister
- 20 Etymology
- 21 Military Nurses
- 22 Russian nurses
- 23 Is a nurse more careing then a doctor.
- 24 infobox
- 25 nursing
Any chance that we could get a photo of a male nurse in the article? There are certainly enough men (even masculine, heterosexual, basically asterotypical type male nurses) that are serving in this profession to warrant at least one photo to acknowledge their existance. Does anyone have a photo to contribute to this article? Please add it if you do. Thanks. (By the way, I want to say that I am not implying that there is anything wrong with other than heterosexual nurses, I am just attempting to make a point about the persistance of the sterotype and thought that all nurses are female or gay which male nurses contend with on a regular basis- personally, I wish they would change the name of the profession from nurse to something more gender ambiguous, I'm not quite sure exactly what that might be though but I think it should be based on the professional's focus, career level, and education- just a thought).
I would upload one of me but I am one of those stereotypes. 'Nurse' is not gender ambiguous merely society expects nurses to be female, once more males enter the profession maybe the misconceptions will disappear Panthro (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
-Dude, just upload your image, please, because it would be nice to see at least one image of a male nurse in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
== ':)lol i hate wikipedia'Funny == that in the catholic world, nurses have been mostly men. So is just anglosaxon society who expects nurses being female. It made "Meet the Parents" movie hard to understand in Spain, for example.
Come on now, there has to be at least one male nurse willing to upload his photo onto this site. With the increase in male nurses it is just wrong for the article to have no representation of the male nurses. I will be starting nursing school (Master of Nursing degree) and will upload my image once I have completed the course and am an RN (the degree is for people with non-nursing bachelor degrees who want to go into the nursing field but at a graduate level). Anyway, I challenge you to upload your image before I upload mine. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
-Anyone else notice that the portal color is pink? May want to change that, someone might take it the wrong way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Correleon (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that there is excessive capitalisation in this article. I do not think that registered nurse, health care assistant or similar terms should have a capital letter. If you refer to any nursing dictionary you will find that these terms do not have a capital letter. The only time you might use a capital is when you are using it as a title such as Nurse Jones. I would like to replace all of these capitals but as it is quite a major job I thought I would canvas opinion on it first. --Vince 10:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Vincej, I agree with you and admit that a lot of these are my error. I'll try to help fix them as well. -THB 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I started a timeline of nursing history as there is no nursing history article (or good section of an article.) I chose this approach as it gives an overview, links to many other articles, and can serve as the outline for a regular article later. Please feel free to contribute.-THB 16:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Proposed addition to this article:cartoon nurses
In the future, add a section discussing a list of cartoon nurses by looking through any cartoon nurses. The section will be titled "Cartoon Nurses."
- Bad idea. A separate article entitled Cartoon nurses would be fine. -THB 05:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with THB, and in any case it would be "Cartoon nurses".
I agree. There will be a separate article entitled Cartoon nurses.
I pared down the U.S. section in this article since there is now a main article Nursing in the United States. The UK section could use a little nip and tuck here and there, too. -THB 00:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed THB, will have a look tomorrow Panthro 23:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If one should include a section for every country in this article, the article will be very long and unwieldy - and I don't think it's "right" to include only "important" or "big" countries. Eventually one could create a separate article "nursing in different countries". tobixen 01:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I was disappointed to see that the portion on the US does not include information on NP, DNP or PhD level nursing. Nursing education and practice in the US now extends to the Doctor of Nursing Practice and the PhD in nursing which allows these trained nurses to preform as primary care providers on par with a Medical Doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Other healthcare workers
The long-standing (and recently intensified) friction between nursing and the other healthcare professions is probably worthy of mention if someone can do a good lit review on it. However, I don't see any need to have what is effectively just a list of a very small number of the wider spectrum of healthcare providers with an explanation of what they do - that surely belongs in an article such as "Healthcare Professional" or similar. If there are no objections, I'll remove. --John24601 16:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- The original intent of that paragraph, I believe, was to explain that a lot of the health care workers people assume are nurses, such as aides or techs, aren't. In the U.S. a lot of hospitals have been adding non-nurses and even putting them in similar uniforms (usually scrubs) in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to confuse the public about how few nurses there really are in the hospital. Maybe the paragraph should be more about how nurses are part of the health care "team". -THB 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure how to really put that in a neutral format, and We don't want to put a bias on the public perceptions of intradiscipline cooperation in the healthcare fields. I'll put some thought into it...It may tie into the nursing shortage--- Lucas
"...that appears to be a deliberate attempt to confuse the public about how few nurses there really are in the hospital..." Excellent observation. The "cross-training" is bred of cost-control to the detriment of patient care and to the benefit of bottom line profit. My two-cents from Nevada...the state with the worst nursing ratios in the country. Forgive my lack of formatting skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Who put the nonsense about nurses following directions of physicians? Nurses are not handmaidens to MDs. They have their own scope of practice.
Physician assistants - AHPs?
How would you describe PAs then? They are neither medics nor nurses, so surely other healthcare workers and as far as I can determine, AHP is the best place to put them. Panthro 08:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, but there's a PA running amok, adding paragraphs to the NP article about PAs, etc. PAs are exactly what the name implies, assistants to physicians. They're not doctors. They're not nurses. They're allied health....workers. -THB 09:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Allied Health (at least in the USA) implies that these sevices and consults are provided under the orders of an MD, NP or PA.
- Hmm, my understanding of allied health is all of the health professions that are not doctors or nurses (occasionally it is used to include nurses too). They don't nescessarily have to take orders from a doctor etc.: what about physiotherapists (known as physical therapists in the US)? --John24601 14:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree, in Britain at least physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists etc etc are all autonomous practitioners that are not "under orders" from anyone. PAs are not medics, just as nurses are not medics. Panthro 21:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
In the US, the term 'Healthcare Provider' is used to describe Nurse Practioners (NP) (Of all types) Physicians Assistants (PA), and Medical Doctors (MD), as well as Osteopathic Doctors (DO). Nurses are is a category by thmeselves. Allied Health Providers are assumed to be Respiratory Therapists, Radiological Technichians, Lab Techs, Phamacists, Physical Therapists, and pretty much anyone else who provided direct patient care or services that doesn't have prescription authority. Hope this helps clear that up. By the way I was going to start a category on 'Critical Care nursing', any suggestions as to where to put it?
- A couple of comments: Nurse Practitioners are nurses. PTs, OTs, STs, etc. generally work under MD or NP or PA order in the U.S., but I am not sure of the extent of autonomous practice allowed by law.
- Critical care nursing would be a subcategory of nursing and of critical care if there is such a category. The easiest way to start a category is to write articles to go into that category. -THB 00:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Nurse Practitioners are nurses in the US, yes. However, they are allowed to practice autonomously and prescribe medications. Anyone with an MNP, DNP, or PhD may practice as an independant primary health care provider. In every state you will find nurse practioners who have offices just like a medical doctor. An NP may prescribe medications and order tests. You do not need to work in conjuntcion with an MD if you hold the NP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
THB: Nurse Practioners are nurses, true, but are considered 'Healthcare Providers' in that they have prescription authority and can admit to hospitals and other such 'provider level' privliges. This puts them into a different class than the traditional RN, as for the purposes we are discussing. A critical and often over looked part of the NP role is that a direct relationship with the physican is not nessecary, as the RN is practicing under his/her own liscence. A PA on the other hand, is directly under the supervision and authority of the MD/DO, and working under the doctor's liscence, whereas the NP is not. As for autonomous action by other branches of the allied health fields, it depends on the branch. I belive that PT's and OT's can practice independently of medical direction, but those such as RT's and Rad Tech's can not. I know that pharmacists can in some areas perscribe, but still are limited to dispensing only, althought this is changing as the profession evolves. It may vary from state however, and I am basing this off of current Arizona laws and regulations. By the way, the critical care nursing page is up, but is still at a very base form. Anything you want to contribute will be welcome. --LucasRN 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know of any states where pharmacists can prescribe and in some states, NPs must work under at least remote MD supervision. I'm not arguing with what you say about NPs, just want to point out that they are nurses. -THB 01:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
They are called 'Clinical Pharmacists' and there are only a few states in the US that have them up and running, it's still a rather new concept, like the DNP (Clinical Doctorate Of Nursing Practice)and yore' right, in most states NP's must have what's called 'A working relationship' with an MD, sort of a resource if they have any problems. And you are very right about NP's...they do not practice medicine, they practice advanced practice nursing...a very different field. --LucasRN 01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You are basing your arguments on an American tangent - in Britain we have pharmacists who can prescribe POMs, nurse practitioners who work collaboratively with their medical colleagues however are not accountable to or subordinate to them. In Britain also, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, are all autonomous practitioners - that is they can assess, plan, implement and discharge patients from treatment regimens. They are not "under order" from a medic or nurse, however a referral is required - be it a formal (i.e. written) or an informal (i.e. asking if they could assess a patient's needs) referral. Panthro 09:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there is an assumption on everybody's part here that "prescriptive authority" is the be all and end all of healthcare. Health is a far wider concept that malfunctioning anatomy/physiology, and the vast majority of it has nothing to do with doctors or prescriptions. Whilst a lot of utter c**p has been writen under the banner of holistic healthcare, there is a point buried there somewhere. Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy etc. has very little to do with medicine or even disease, the same goes for many aspects of nursing and even medicine. By reducing a health professional's status to whether or not they can prescribe a medication or admit a patient to a hospital, are we not vastly, vastly oversimplifying the matter to a point where the classification is at best not useful, and at worst misleading? All it does is reinforce the "doctor is god" image which patient groups and the other health professions have (rightly) spent so long trying to shake off. I don't like the term "Allied Health Professions" or "Professionals allied to medicine" because it deliberately excludes doctors and to some extent nurses and by definition then makes them somehow higher in status when they don't deserve or need to be. Healthcare provider should be exactly that - somebody who provides healthcare - that's doctors, nurses, paramedics, occupational therapists, physical therapists, operating department practitioners, dieticians, speech & language therapists, radiographers etc. You can't exclude anybody from a term like that simply because they don't prescribe medicines --John24601 11:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to set the prescriptive authority as the 'be all end all' of healthcare providers, I am merely making the point that in most professional publications in the US, the term 'healthcare provider' is loosly applied to those with the training to diagnose, treat and prescribe medications, all the while working towards the end goal of the patient's well being. Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Speech Therapists Medical doctors, Nurse practioners and PA's are all an integral part of the team...no one discipline can go it alone. And, Panthro, of course I make my statements off of the American model of healthcare, as I practice in that system. I am not familiar with the European models of healthcare, and therefore would not presume to write about them...I try to stick to what I am comfortable with, and have an existing knowledge base. --LucasRN 16:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Too many simultaneous conversations! LucasRN, in which U.S. states can pharmacists prescribe medication? My understanding of the term "clinical pharmacist" does not include prescriptive powers. -THB 16:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks much better
This article has really improved because of the effort so many people put in it as "collaboration of the month". It has a consistent framework, a more even distribution of information, REFERENCES (some, anyway!), and reads better. -THB 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Discussion prior to September 2005 has been archived and may be accessed from the archive box at the top of the page.-THB 23:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are the contents on the right and the infobox or illustrative pic on the left? This the exact opposite of general Wikipedia Protocol. Quadzilla99 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I see some bright spark has added various requests for citations; maybe they should do it for the lot as there are only five or so very dubious refes throughout! Ianguy 04:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The entry should be shortened, and some sections removed into separate parts. I'll do a quick fix, but somebody else should clean up a little more. MadMaxDog 12:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
International Labor Organization
Can anyone add information on ILO Convention 149? Among other things, they distinguish between professional and auxiliary nurses. I know that these terms may not be used in all or even many countries, but there must be some corespondence between the terminology in the ILO convention and that used by signatory countries. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- The International Labour Organization's 149th convention was conceived in 1977. A lot has changed in nursing since then and to be honest I think it adds little to the article. The article explains the difference quite clearly between a registered and non-registered nurse. And in any case after reading the convention; it doesn't explain the difference between a professional or auxiliary nurse. Panthro 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The treaty has the status of law for any country that signed it, regardless of the year it was written. Not all countries use the term "registered nurse." And to be fair (and clear) I am not suggesting a LOT of space be devoted to the ILO convention - indeed, maybe it merits only a brief mention. But it provides a framework that helps move us beyond English speaking countries, which is a limitation in many Wikipedia articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I feel it adds nothing to the article. It does not describe what a nurse is and is not. Merely stating that national laws of individual countries should legally define nursing! In addition, only 38 countries have ratified it. This is out of 181 member states: thereby only a fifth have ratified it. This is only my view so feel free to add any information to any article (Be Bold); however be prepared for your edits being edited themselves. Panthro 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The Nurse article and WikiProject Nursing: getting back to basics
I have watched the Nurse page for awhile, and I understand that it has gone through many revisions. It is not an easy article to write. How on earth do you describe what we are, what we do? More importantly, how do you do so succinctly and for an international audience?
I feel strongly that the article has structural problems, and I see from #Country articles (above) that I'm not the only one. I believe that the Nurse article tries to do too much, that it should concentrate on describing our profession to an excellent standard. I feel the current structure tends to be a laundry-list of nations rather than an encyclopaedic description of a profession.
Therefore, my first proposal for this article is that most or all of the country-specific information be moved into separate articles (current examples of which are Nursing_in_Australia and Nursing_in_the_United_States), as describing nursing practice in countries around the world is too much to ask of any one article.
My goal: feature article status for Nurse. If I were to attempt to raise your competitive hackles, I'd point out that of Pharmacist, Physician, Physical_therapist, and Occupational_therapist, none rate a good article flag, let alone a featured article. We could be the first ;)
- I am beginning the process of moving country-specific information to other articles. Cheers, Basie (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Smashing! What it needed. Although now we need to add some referenced text; it's looking a wee bit bare! And that awful head picture has to go, unless it is put in a history section of this article. Panthro (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Absolutely, there is much more to be done. I'd love to find a better image for the head, but don't have one at present so will focus on text for now ;) Cheers, Basie (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
New head image
I have changed the picture associated with the head of the article to the one at above left, which used to be buried at the end of the article. Why?
- It depicts direct patient care
- The figure is clearly identifiable as a nurse and nothing else
- The expression on her face, and the way she is holding her patient, say a lot about our profession. She's obviously careful, gentle, caring, watchful.
- Gives the article a sense of history
I don't have anything especially against the other two nurses, but the pictures feel a bit posed and the third in particular is like a publicity shot, with the background edited out. The article has a large number of pictures and I'd like to pare that down a bit.
Also, the second picture has a rather dodgy comment attached to it which I don't feel happy with as being associated with the article. I won't repeat it here, click the image and scroll down if you're curious. Cheers, Basie (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- That vandalism was reverted, see this diff. Basie (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and I agree with posts made some time ago about the need for at least one image of a man, and for modern pictures. If you've got 'em, and they're in commons, go for it! Basie (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is a rubbish picture, to be honest. However, is much better than the previous. "The figure is clearly identifiable as a nurse and nothing else" Not true. Midwifery is a distinct profession here in Britain and elsewhere. Saying that, until a more appropriate image is found, it should remain Panthro (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Took this one down as well, at least in the meantime... running out of room! Does anyone have any information on where this was taken, or what they were doing? Cheers, Basie (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Put Georgina Pope here for now too. I imagine the discussion as to which pictures are best could prove lively, but for now I'm focusing on the text. Basie (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I realise that the term is now likely to be depreciated in many countries, but bearing in mind that there is a link here from the "sister" disamb page, I think some discussion about the term would be helpful. Thehalfone (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have realised that the use of the term "sister" may be restricted to the UK, in which case it doesn't belong here. In this case however we need to change the link from the disamb page. I don't know which is the right thing to do. Thehalfone (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed this section a lot. It seemed to be original research and contained too many weasel words. I removed the following:
- It is commonly agreed that the term "nurse", despite the overt change in usage, carries with it the connotation of breastfeeding and "wet-nursing." - weasel words that could never bee supported by a citation. Also probably not true. Most english speakers are probably unaware of any link between the word "nurse" and the concept of breast feeding.
- This lack of male interest may thus contribute to the shortage of nurses —a serious problem in the medical profession. - this is just (prbably correct) speculation.
In the United States some nurses have BA or BSN degrees, so in the military they can serve as an officer. Since the military doesn't adjust ranks for advanced degrees (doctorates), does the situation arise where a doctor of lower rank is giving orders to a nurse who outranks him/her? How exactly does that work? Or is rank generally not an issue in places like an OR or physician office in the military?ChillyMD (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is an interesting question. I am not positive of the answer, but it brings up the point of mutual respect and teamwork.
First of all,
- If the nurse outranks the physician, there is likely a vast difference in the matter of experience. That nurse is likely to be in a command position such as Major General Gale Pollock who was the acting Surgeon General of the US Army. In that case one would hardly see her being in a situation of direct patient care, such as being in an OR taking orders from a surgeon.
- This issue of rank extends past the military as well especially outside of the roles of direct patient care. Does a resident outrank a charge nurse? Some would say yes, but many residents would disagree. Does a attending physician "outrank" the nursing supervisor, or the director of nursing, or the CEO of the hospital (who can very likely be a nurse)? Again, arguements can be made, but if there was a significant dispute the trump card would likely lie with the physician's privledges (or future lack thereof) at that hospital.
- Even if this comes up in the realm of patient care, those team members compartmentalize and assume their roles. After all, a person in charge, or having a higher rank would not be doing their job well if they did not recognize their roles in a team, and listen to the other members of that team.