PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11897914

Nurses as equals in the multidisciplinary team.

Abstract

For many years nurses have had a high profile both nationally and internationally, but in the past most nurses played only a supporting role. Although the doctor is still recognized as the leader of the clinical team, nurses have become recognized as professionals in their own right, carrying responsibility for their own actions. The clinical and managerial judgement of nurses is respected and increasingly they are given the authority to make policy decisions within a team. However, nurses must take personal responsibility for developing their own leadership and boardroom skills to enable them to make an equal contribution. In this article I reflect on how Professor Michael Hull valued the role of nurses as equal members of the clinical team. In the Centre for Reproductive Medicine in Bristol he paved the way towards making nurses equal. He encouraged nurses to learn and use their knowledge and this in turn developed self-esteem and confidence, which not only made nurses equal but also made them feel equal.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Elizabeth Corrigan. 2002. Nurses as equals in the multidisciplinary team.. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464727022000199901

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Justice and equality in mental health law: the European experience.

This is the text of a lecture delivered at the World Conference of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health in Sydney in September 2003 on the occasion of the award to the author of the Prix Philippe Pinel. Its theme is the potential of the European Convention on Human Rights to secure the human rights of people with mental disorders and disabilities, viewed in the context of the legislation on mental health and mental incapacity in England and Wales. Its conclusion is that the Convention is better at protecting them from unwanted or unnecessary treatment and care than it is at securing for them equal access to the treatment and care they want or need. The lecture has been updated to reflect developments in the United Kingdom since 2003.

Civil Rights↗

["For the welfare of patients"--is this really the case?].

According to a decision by the German Federal Constitution Court (1 BvR 347/98), it is illegal to refuse compulsorily insured persons therapy if they suffering from a lifethreatening disease against which there is no effective therapy on the basis of current medical science. The chosen method of treatment should offer a not entirely remote chance of healing. What counts is the effect treatment has in each individual case. Serious objections to the the Court's criteria have been expressed by medical and legal experts, who contend that the Court has disregarded patients' protection against unknown risks and "quackery" as well as the incalculable financial effects on the community of insureds.

Civil Rights↗