Using phronesis instead of 'research-based practice' as the guiding light for nursing practice

Abstract Phronesis , a popular Aristotelian concept that emphasizes deliberation and moral action, should replace the phrase 'research-based practice' as the guiding light for nursing practice. Knowledge from research is still essential, of course, but is insufficient by itself for practice. In this paper, the author describes assumptions behind the apparent superiority of research-based knowledge, and offers a critique of this position. One critique is that by automatically accepting the superiority of research-based knowledge other types of knowledge (e.g. intuitive, ethical, personal) are devalued. A second critique is that undeliberated, indiscriminate use of research findings may lead to inappropriate nursing practice. Phronesis is then described, and its application to nursing. For example, phronesis requires that the context of the situation be considered very carefully before acting. Aristotle stated that the goal of personal phronesis is to reach eudaimonia , or genuine happiness or 'human flourishing'. Infusing nursing practice with phronesis means that an anthropomorphized discipline's eudaimonia would be the eudaimonia of patients. That is, nursing practice would be guided by a desire for patients' genuine happiness or human flourishing. The final section of the paper offers rebuttals to potential criticisms.     

Occupational therapists report a low level of knowledge,skill and involvement in evidence‐based practice

This study was conducted to collect information about Australian occupational therapists’ involvement in evidence‐based practice. The study aimed to document: (i) respondents’ level of knowledge and skills; (ii) their level of participation in continuing education; and (iii) perceived barriers to evidence‐based practice. A purposive sample of 85 occupational therapists was invited to complete a questionnaire prior to attending an introductory workshop on evidence‐based practice. Sixty‐seven questionnaires were returned and analysed (78.8% response rate). Half of the respondents rated their level of knowledge and skills required for evidence‐based practice as low (conducting database searches = 50.7%; critically appraising literature = 53.0%). The majority of respondents (79.1%) reported a low level of knowledge about electronic databases. Few respondents had attended education sessions on evidence‐based practice (15.0%). The six most commonly reported barriers to adopting evidence‐based practice were lack of time, a large caseload, limited searching skills, limited appraisal skills, difficulty accessing journals and a perceived lack of evidence to support occupational therapy intervention. The majority of occupational therapists in this sample were entering the first phase of continuing professional development in relation to evidence‐based practice.     

A case for the ‘middle ground’: exploring the tensions of postmodern thought in nursing

Abstract Diverse beliefs about the nature and essence of scientific truth are pervasive in the nursing literature. Most recently, rejection of a more traditional and objective truth has resulted in a shift toward an emphasis on the acceptance of multiple and subjective truths. Some nursing scholars have discarded the idea that objective truth exists at all, but instead have argued that subjective truth is the only knowable truth and therefore the one that ought to govern nursing's disciplinary inquiry. Yet, there has been relatively little critical debate or dialogue about the implications of adopting subjective and multiple truths as a maxim to govern the discipline. In this paper we examine what it might mean to adopt subjective forms of truth as the only knowable truths for nursing, and to accept the possibility of multiple co‐existing realities. We understand the implications of such a philosophical stance for the epistemological basis of a practice science to be considerable, therefore we consider what it might mean for a practice‐based discipline such as nursing to remain ambiguous on the question of truth, and examine the implications of failing to achieve consensus on what constitutes a truth claim. On the basis of this examination, we urge a cautious approach to the extremes of either position and argue for a more thoughtful and rigorous dialogue about ‘truth’ and knowledge in nursing practice, education, and research.     

Researching nursing practice: does person‐centredness matter?1

Person‐centredness is common speak in nursing and health care literature. Increasingly there is an expectation that practitioners adopt person‐centred principles in their practice and organizations are expected to respect the values of the service user. However, in the research methodology literature, there is little explicit attention paid to the concept of person‐centredness in research practice. Instead, there continues to be a reliance on traditional ‘ethical principles’ to guide effectiveness in research work. This paper argues that the principles of person‐centredness that are espoused in nursing practice should also underpin nursing and health care research. A framework for person‐centred research is proposed and issues concerning its implementation in practice are discussed.     

The effort to control time in the ‘new’ general practice

Since the 1980s and 1990s doctors in the UK have reported a lack of time; this has been reproduced in the reorganisation of work through various contracts and regulatory mechanisms. I draw on interviews with 32 General Practitioners (GPs) in Wales about their everyday work, focusing on accounts about the limited nature of their time. I use Adams’ analysis of the rationalisation of work time through the processes of commodification, compression, and colonisation, to explore tensions between traditional and new ways of doctoring. While it was possible to find evidence of traditional ways of managing time that shaped the activities of doctors and controlled those activities, the doctors were not passive participants in the rationalisation of work time. Rather they actively modified its processes using notions of professionalism that are aligned to traditional doctoring, and which offer new ways of doing and being a professional.     

Role of research in occupational therapy clinical practice: Applying action learning and action research in pursuit of evidence‐based practice

Background: In South Africa, as in many other countries, the development of research capacity in students and their early professional career is regarded as of major importance. Within the context of clinical education for occupational therapy students at the University of the Free State, a lecturer and her students embarked on a collaborative journey while fulfilling the requirements of their undergraduate curriculum. The outcome is a model promoting evidence‐based practice (EBP) during service development on a dementia care ward. Methods: The practical use of action learning, action research (ALAR) approach in the clinical context, was used to encourage student engagement in successive small‐scale research projects while simulating EBP. The projects ranged from the development of therapeutic multi‐sensory environments to compiling activity profiles for identified residents. At the same time, students had the opportunity to experience the value of a scientific approach to practice development, which stimulated their awareness of the importance of research. Results: Reflection by the researcher contributed towards more effective ways for compiling project assignments and a formalised approach for assessing projects. Students described personal and professional gains because of participation in projects against the life‐changing experience of rendering a service to elderly persons suffering from dementia. The formalised approach guiding thoughts and actions finally assisted in developing a practical process model that could support EBP. Conclusions: The ALAR model contributed towards a scholarship of practice where the students, clinical educator and residents of a dementia unit all experienced the value of research.     

‘Genuine doctor care’: Perspectives on general practice and community‐based care of Australian men experiencing homelessness

People with complex health and social needs, including tri‐morbidity and homelessness, are challenging for modern healthcare systems. These clients have poor health and social outcomes. They tend to use available health resources inefficiently, with fragmented, uncoordinated use of multiple health and social care services. Increasing access for these clients to well‐supported general practice care may be an effective response to these challenges. The aim of this study was to explore client experiences of, and attitudes to, community‐based healthcare, and general practice in particular, to identify opportunities to improve healthcare provision. Five focus groups with a total of 20 men currently experiencing homelessness were facilitated by the corresponding author in an inner‐city homeless hostel. Discussions were transcribed, coded and analysed thematically. The analysis was informed by earlier focus group discussions with community‐based homeless healthcare providers. Participants reported reluctance to engage with healthcare providers outside times of perceived crisis, and experiences of stigma and dismissive care. Some participants were sceptical of the motivations of health and social care providers, including general practitioners. Presentations with physical and psychological pain featured prominently in participant accounts. Three key themes identified important aspects of client experiences of community‐based healthcare which indicate potential areas for improvement. These themes were as follows: the relative invisibility and low salience of general practice compared to hospital‐based emergency and inpatient services; discontinuity within community‐based healthcare and across transitions between community‐based and other healthcare; and inconsistent and unsatisfactory general practitioner responses to physical and psychological pain. These responses included apparent over‐prescribing, under‐prescribing and short‐term ‘band‐aid’ responses. Generalist medical expertise was valued in general practitioners, but not consistently experienced. A number of challenges and opportunities exist, at both individual and system levels, for general practice to realise its potential to deliver effective, compassionate and efficient care to clients experiencing homelessness.     

Topographies of ‘care pathways’ and ‘healthscapes’: reconsidering the multiple journeys of people with a brain tumour

People diagnosed with brain tumours enter new and unfamiliar worlds in which they must make complex and previously unimaginable decisions about care, treatment and how to live their lives. While decisions are increasingly based around care pathways, these are embedded in values that often fail to accord with those of patients. In this article, we examine the cases of people with a brain tumour and how they, their families and healthcare professionals navigate and intervene in the course of life‐threatening disease. We use ethnographic data (2014–16) and modified social theory to highlight: (1) patients’ interpretations of disease and care and how they might differ from dominant biomedical logics; (2) complexity and contingency in care decisions; (3) rapid and unanticipated change owing to disease and bodily change; and (4) how people find ways through a world that is continually in motion and which comes into being through the combined action of human and non‐human agencies. Our modified ‘healthscapes’ approach provides an analytic that emphasises the constant precariousness of life with a brain tumour. It helps to explain the times when patients’ feel bumped off the pathway and moments when they themselves step away to make new spaces for choice.     

Destabilizing the ‘equipoise’ framework in clinical trials: prioritizing non‐exploitation as an ethical framework in clinical research

The framework of equipoise has been promulgated as an underlying requirement for conducting ethical clinical research. Equipoise is the term used for a state of indifference about which treatment intervention or innovation will provide the most benefit and the least harm to recipients. Drawing on healthcare, research, and ethics literature, this paper analyses the implications of equipoise from the perspective of several proponents and critics. Specifically the historical evolution of the concept based on Fried and Freedman's arguments is traced. A critique of the concept, informed by contrasting perspectives, is offered. An alternative framework of non‐exploitation as presented by Miller and Brody is argued to be superior in facilitating both the ultimate goals of research on human subjects and those of the healthcare professions'.     

Initiating decision‐making in neurology consultations: ‘recommending’ versus ‘option‐listing’ and the implications for medical authority

This article compares two practices for initiating treatment decision‐making, evident in audio‐recorded consultations between a neurologist and 13 patients in two hospital clinics in the UK. We call these ‘recommending’ and ‘option‐listing’. The former entails making a proposal to do something; the latter entails the construction of a list of options. Using conversation analysis (CA), we illustrate each, showing that the distinction between these two practices matters to participants. Our analysis centres on two distinctions between the practices: epistemic differences and differences in the slots each creates for the patient’s response. Considering the implications of our findings for understanding medical authority, we argue that option‐listing – relative to recommending – is a practice whereby clinicians work to relinquish a little of their authority. This article contributes, then, to a growing body of CA work that offers a more nuanced, tempered account of medical authority than is typically portrayed in the sociological literature. We argue that future CA studies should map out the range of ways – in addition to recommending – in which treatment decision‐making is initiated by clinicians. This will allow for further evidence‐based contributions to debates on the related concepts of patient participation, choice, shared decision‐making and medical authority.