In this paper, we present a comparative analysis of three survey studies of disease prestige in medical culture. The studies were conducted in 1990, 2002 and 2014 using the same research design. In each of the three rounds, a sample of Norwegian physicians was asked to rate a set of 38 diseases on a scale from 1 to 9 according to the prestige they believed health personnel in general would award them. The results show a remarkable stability in the prestige rank order over 25 years. The top three diseases in all three surveys were leukaemia, brain tumour and myocardial infarction. The four lowest ranked were fibromyalgia, depressive neurosis, anxiety neurosis and hepatocirrhosis. The most notable change concerns apoplexy (brain stroke), which moved from a rank of 33 to 29 and then to 23 over the three rounds. We argue that the stable pattern, as well as this change, substantiate the interpretation of previous research, i.e. that the prestige of a disease is affected by the localization of the affected organ or body part, the effect and style of its typical treatment, and the social attributes of the typical patient. Analysing physicians' shared evaluations of different diseases, the paper contributes to the cultural understanding of disease conceptions in medicine. Understanding these conceptions is important because disease prestige may influence decision-making in the healthcare sector.

No abstract

This article proposes an interactionist update of "street-level bureaucracy," one of the most influential approaches for studying how public policy is translated into street-level practice. While the street-level approach assumes that bureaucrats are alone in enacting policy, the present article argues for seeing "street-level policy" as formed in negotiation between bureaucrats and clients. To demonstrate this, the article uses ethnographic data and a Straussian framework to analyze how nurses and patients negotiated access in a Norwegian emergency service. The article thus sets a new course for street-level research, helping researchers look beyond the individual to explore inter-individual negotiation and its influence on street-level decision-making.

This article draws on ethnographic data from a Norwegian emergency primary care clinic (EPCC) to explore nurses' discretionary application of guidelines. Specifically, it analyses nurses' discretionary use of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) when performing face-to-face triage, that is, assessing the urgency of patients' complaints. The analysis shows how nurses assessed patients at odds with MTS prescriptions by collecting supplementary data, engaging in differential diagnostic and holistic reasoning, relying on emotion and intuition, and allowing colleagues and patients to influence their reasoning. The findings also show how nurses' reasoning led them to override guidelines both overtly and covertly. Based on this evidence, it is argued that nurses' assessments relied more on internalised 'triage mindlines' than on codified triage guidelines, although the MTS did function as a support system, checklist and system for supervisory control. The study complements existing research on standardisation in nursing by providing an in-depth analysis of nurses' methods for navigating guidelines and by detailing how deviations from those guidelines spring from their clinical reasoning. The challenges of imposing a managerial logic on professional labour are also highlighted, which is of particular relevance in light of the drive towards standardisation in modern healthcare.

No abstract