The Slippery Slope of Nursing Regulation: Challenging Issues for Contemporary Nursing Practice in Canada
Abstract
This paper provides readers with an overview of some contemporary issues associated with nursing regulation and scope of practice in Canada. Issues with the current organizational structure of nursing regulation and its impact on nursing advocacy in Canada are explored. An argument is presented that nursing regulation needs more consistency and collaboration in Canada. Several examples are used to illustrate this. Fragmentation of regulation is explored and regulatory disciplinary processes are examined in relation to some countries with similar professional structures. The impact of changes in the regulatory status of complementary and alternative health practitioners on nursing is also critiqued. We provide recommendations for future policy and practice to better pave the way for nursing scope and regulatory clarity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The federated system has been cited as a significant barrier to regulatory harmonization and labour mobility.
“The federated system has been cited as a significant barrier to regulatory harmonization [35,50,59,147] and labour mobility [4,15,59,60,62,154].”
From Nursing regulation in Canada: Insights from a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [50]
Discussions and critiques about these policy trends have shown up in our review, which signals some alignment between regulatory scholarship and practice.
“Discussions and critiques about these policy trends have shown up in our review, which signals some alignment between regulatory scholarship and practice [5,50,95,115,205].”
From Nursing regulation in Canada: Insights from a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [50]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nursing regulation in Canada: Insights from a scoping review
Chiu, P., Thiessen, N. J., Idrees, S., Leslie, K., & Kung, J. Y. (2025) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323716 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“Discussions and critiques about these policy trends have shown up in our review, which signals some alignment between regulatory scholarship and practice [5,50,95,115,205].”
- Authors
- Garrett, B., & MacPhee, M.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership
- Publisher
- Longwoods Publishing
- Published
- 2014-09-30
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 51-69
- ISSN
- 1481-9643 (ISSN-L)
- 1929-6355
- OpenAlex
- W2104599681
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 3.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nursing leadership (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Occupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
- Keywords
- nursing regulation, scope of practice, nursing advocacy, regulatory fragmentation, disciplinary proceedings, Canada
- MeSH terms
- Complementary Therapies, Attitude of Health Personnel, Canada, Cooperative Behavior, Employee Discipline, Forecasting, Humans, Legislation, Nursing, Nurses, Interdisciplinary Communication
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
