Aim To explore how the media and socially established hero narrative, affected the nursing staff who worked in the frontline during the first round of the COVID19‐pandemic. Background During the COVID19‐pandemic, both media, politicians and the public have supported and cheered on the frontline healthcare workers around the world. We have found the hero narrative to be potentially problematic for both nurses and other healthcare workers. This paper presents an analysis and discussion of the consequences of being proclaimed a hero. Design Hospital ethnography including fieldwork and focus groups. Method Empirical data was collected in a newly opened COVID19‐ward in a university hospital in the urban site of Copenhagen, Denmark. Fieldwork was performed from April until the ward closed in the end of May 2020. Succeeding focus group interviews with nursing staff who worked in the COVID19‐ward were conducted in June 2020. The data were abductively analysed. Results The nursing staff rejected the hero narrative in ways that show how the hero narrative leads to predefined characteristics, ideas of being invincible and self‐sacrificing, knowingly and willingly working in risk, transcending duties and imbodying a boundless identity. Being proclaimed as a hero inhibits important discussions of rights and boundaries. Conclusion The hero narrative strips the responsibility of the politicians and imposes it onto the hospitals and the individual heroic health care worker . Impact It is our agenda to show how the hero narrative detaches the connection between the politicians, society and healthcare system despite being a political apparatus. When reassessing contingency plans, it is important to incorporate the experiences from the health care workers and include their rights and boundaries. Finally, we urge the media to cover a long‐lasting pandemic without having the hero narrative as the reigning filter.

The Scandinavian welfare states are known for their universal access to healthcare; however, health inequalities affecting ethnic minority patients are prevalent. Ethnic minority patients' encounters with healthcare systems are often portrayed as part of a system that represents objectivity and neutrality. However, the Danish healthcare sector is a political apparatus that is affected by policies and conceptualisations. Health policies towards ethnic minorities are analysed using Bacchi's policy analysis, to show how implicit problem representations are translated from political and societal discourses into the Danish healthcare system. Our analysis shows that health policies are based on different ideas of who ethnic minority patients are and what kinds of challenges they entail. Two main issues are raised: First, ethnic minorities are positioned as bearers of ‘culture’ and ‘ethnicity’. These concepts of ‘othering’ become both explanations for and the cause of inappropriate healthcare behaviour. Second, the Scandinavian welfare states are known for their solidarity, collectivism, equality and tolerance, also grounded in a postracial, colour‐blind and noncolonial past ideology that forms the societal self‐image. Combined with the ethical and legal responsibility of healthcare professionals to treat all patients equally, our findings indicate little leeway for addressing the discrimination experienced by ethnic minority patients.

Aim and objectives To explore nurses’ constructions of the concept of evidence‐based practice through their understandings of and experiences with evidence‐based practice in a clinical care setting. Background The primary purpose of evidence‐based practice is high‐quality patient outcomes. However, the adoption of evidence‐based practice is described as a complex process, and research shows that evidence‐based practice is not translated into practice. Research often explores facilitators and barriers of implementing and adopting evidence‐based practice. Yet there is limited knowledge on how nurses construct the concept in practice. Design This study has a constructivist approach and follows COREQ guidelines. Method Ten semi‐structured interviews with 26 nurses were conducted in 2019. Data were analysed with an emic and inductive approach. Results Three key constructions emerged. Understandings of evidence‐based practice were based on the original concept of evidence‐based medicine. This included the hierarchy of evidence which was perceived as an inflexible concept not encompassing the nursing care. However, while not using the term evidence‐based practice, the nurses were doing evidence‐based practice portrayed through outcomes from management‐supported nursing‐based projects and incorporated reflections and discussions into weekly meetings. A discrepancy between a theoretical understanding and a practical doing of evidence‐based practice appeared and was especially evident when the nurses’ primary evidence sources consisted of the immediate options, for example asking colleagues or following accessible guidelines. Searching for evidence was central in their theoretical understanding but not an incorporated part of their daily work tasks. Conclusion The nurses’ constructions of evidence‐based practice indicate a discrepancy between the theoretical understanding of evidence‐based practice and the practical doing of evidence‐based practice, which hinders the basis of working according to the concept. Relevance to clinical practice Theoretical discussions of evidence‐based practice within the nursing field remain academic, as nurses in practice construct the concept on standards from evidence‐based medicine.