Live supervision and family systems nursing: postmodern influences and dilemmas

Live supervision and family systems nursing: postmodern influences and dilemmas
Evolving nursing practices in a graduate nursing education programme that offers live clinical supervision in family systems nursing can be conceptualized within a postmodern perspective. Postmodernism is described as a debate about knowledge that questions traditional foundational theories or explanations in science, culture, religion and literature. Practices of a clinical supervision system, i.e. a graduate student, supervisor, and clinical team, illustrate postmodern influences on clinical work with families. Dilemmas posed by contemporaneity of modern and postmodern influences are also explored.     

Beyond evidence-based medicine: bridge-building a medicine of meaning

Contesting that a debate on evidence-based health care has taken place, this article charts three paths to the future: continuing avoidance of debate by proponents of evidence-based medicine (EBM); conflict, which the EBM movement courts and critics have espoused, and dialogue. The last portal allows for integration, which would end the disagreement between EBM and its critics and make a debate unnecessary. In search of integration, I sketch a bridge whose construction requires not compromise but a win- win approach. The bridge is a medicine of meaning (MOM). Consolidating multiple pillars of evidence to unify questions that are not necessarily the same for protagonists and critics of EBM, a MOM contends that the purpose or meaning of medicine is always healing and helping, and each party finds meaning in medicine by contributing to this common purpose in its own distinctive way.     

Corroborating evidence‐based medicine

Proponents of evidence‐based medicine (EBM) have argued convincingly for applying this scientific method to medicine. However, the current methodological framework of the EBM movement has recently been called into question, especially in epidemiology and the philosophy of science. The debate has focused on whether the methodology of randomized controlled trials provides the best evidence available. This paper attempts to shift the focus of the debate by arguing that clinical reasoning involves a patchwork of evidential approaches and that the emphasis on evidence hierarchies of methodology fails to lend credence to the common practice of corroboration in medicine. I argue that the strength of evidence lies in the evidence itself, and not the methodology used to obtain that evidence. Ultimately, when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of medical interventions, it is the evidence obtained from the methodology rather than the methodology that should establish the strength of the evidence.     

Beyond 'faith-based medicine' and EBM

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Longstanding debate on evidence-based medicine (EBM) may have reached a critical saturation point. I briefly report on systematic reviews on the recurring themes in the critical literature. In this context, some criticisms to EBM are substantial and enduring, although convincing arguments to contrast unresolved issues have yet to be produced. Nonetheless, few changes have been adopted and conservative attitudes persist in EBM. Despite its 'success', implementation in practice has been inexorably overshadowed leading to paradoxical shortcomings. This controversial scenario offers a formidable occasion to gain needed insight. The aim of this paper is to attempt a comprehensive analysis by reframing a number of key concerns, while furnishing pragmatic, interdisciplinary solutions for these deep-rooted dilemmas. In the interests of all stakeholders, I seek to promote a concerted effort to resolve conflict and build consensus. METHODS: This paper explores a strategically unifying vision of primary care, based on current understanding of practice patterns, having a research-friendly 'common ground' where practitioners' information needs may be met. In addition, an analysis of existing problems identifies underlying 'root causes'. Moreover, I expediently reframe crucial matters by focusing on EBM, more than as a paradigm, as an organisation, hence amenable to a variety of cross-disciplinary analyses and solutions. Finally, recent state-of-the-art reviews on implementation and dissemination research are cited for the pertinent implications for study design and practice. RESULTS: Present policies and influential testimonials on behalf of EBM encounter the pitfalls of hindering learning and progress through defensive attitudes and mechanisms. Current study designs and evaluation criteria must strive to adapt to real-world settings, rather than vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: The arguments exposed herein alter the terms of the debate on EBM and may outline a basis for initiatives with conflict-resolution and consensus-building scopes.     

Evidence-based medicine: the need for a new definition

Evidence is defined by its ability to establish or support conclusions. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) equates evidence with scientific evidence and views factors such as clinical expertise as important in moving from evidence to action. In contrast, we suggest that EBM should acknowledge multiple dimensions of evidence including scientific evidence, theoretic evidence, practical evidence, expert evidence, judicial evidence and ethics-based evidence. What EBM loses by not acknowledging these dimensions as evidence is the ability, among other things, to make and defend judgements based on understandings that complement science and are no less important than those science can offer. We argue for a new definition of EBM that, without forced accommodation or unacceptable compromise, acknowledges dimensions of evidence produced within and outside science.     

Contemporary theories and contemporary nursing--advancing nursing care for those who are marginalized

This paper critiques the topic of postmodernism and how it is represented in nursing and social science literature. This critique classified the debates into three identifiable constructs, those being: dissatisfaction; fragmentation and integration. The authors propose a solution from the integration debate by putting forward the notion of an 'integrated postmodern turn'. The 'solution' is situated within feminism and draws on modernist and postmodernist theory. The integrated model is grounded in nursing clinical examples which demonstrate the usefulness and workability of this approach when caring for those who are marginalized by nurses because of their ethnicity, gender, cultural and/or spiritual beliefs.     

Underdetermination in evidence‐based medicine

This article explores the philosophical implications of evidence‐based medicine's (EBM's) epistemology in terms of the problem of underdetermination of theory by evidence as expounded by the Duhem–Quine thesis. EBM hierarchies of evidence privilege clinical research over basic science, exacerbating the problem of underdetermination. Because of severe underdetermination, EBM is unable to meaningfully test core medical beliefs that form the basis of our understanding of disease and therapeutics. As a result, EBM adopts an epistemic attitude that is sceptical of explanations from the basic biological sciences, and is relegated to a view of disease at a population level. EBM's epistemic attitude provides a limited research heuristic by preventing the development of a theoretical framework required for understanding disease mechanism and integrating knowledge to develop new therapies. Medical epistemology should remain pluralistic and include complementary approaches of basic science and clinical research, thus avoiding the limited epistemic attitude entailed by EBM hierarchies.     

Evidence-based medicine: revisiting the pyramid of priorities

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is beset with numerous problems. In addition to the fact that varied audiences have each customarily sought differing types of evidence, EBM traditionally incorporated a hierarchy of clinical research designs, placing systematic reviews and meta-analyses at the pinnacle. Yet the canonical pyramid of EBM excludes numerous sources of research information, such as basic research, epidemiology, and health services research. Models of EBM commonly used by third party payers have ignored clinical judgment and patient values and expectations, which together form a tripartite and more realistic guideline to effective clinical care. Added to this is the problem in which enhanced placebo treatments in experimentation may obscure verum effects seen commonly in practice. Compounding the issue is that poor systematic reviews which comprise a significant portion of EBM are prone to subjective bias in their inclusion criteria and methodological scoring, shown to skew outcomes. Finally, the blinding concept of randomized controlled trials is particularly problematic in applications of physical medicine. Examples from the research literature in physical medicine highlight conclusions which are open to debate. More progressive components of EBM are recommended, together with greater recognition of the varying audiences employing EBM.     

Evidence‐based medicine: A cornerstone for clinical care but not for quality improvement

Quality improvement (QI) as a clinical improvement science has been criticized for failing to deliver broad patient outcome improvement and for being a top‐down regulatory and compliance construct. These critics have argued that the focus of QI should be on increasing adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and, as a result, should be consolidated into research structures with the science of evidence‐based medicine (EBM) at the helm. We argue that EBM often overestimates the role of knowledge as the root cause of quality problems and focuses almost exclusively on the effectiveness of care while often neglecting the domains of safety, efficiency, patient‐centredness, and equity. Successfully addressing quality problems requires a much broader, systems‐based view of health‐care delivery. Although essential to clinical decision‐making and practice, EBM cannot act as the cornerstone of health system improvement.     

General practitioners, complementary therapies and evidence-based medicine: the defence of clinical autonomy

Amidst the substantial change currently gripping primary health care are two developments central to contemporary debate regarding the very nature, territory and identity of general practice - the integration of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and the rise of evidence-based medicine (EBM).This paper reports findings from a study based upon 25 in-depth interviews with general practitioners (GPs) personally practising complementary therapies alongside more conventional medicine to treat their NHS patients. The paper outlines the GPs' perceptions of EBM, its relationship to their personal development of CAM, and their notions of good clinical practice more generally. Analysis of the GPs' accounts demonstrates how CAM can be seen as a useful resource with which some GPs defend their clinical autonomy from what they perceive to be the threat of EBM.     

Evidence-based laboratory medicine as a tool for continuous professional improvement

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM), defined as "the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of the current best evidence in making decisions about the care of patients," seems a tool (a "new paradigm") able to meet individual clinical experience with robust observations. EBM has been driven by the need to manage information overload by cost control and by public request for the best in diagnostics and treatment. METHODS: The application of EBM in laboratory medicine or evidence-based laboratory medicine (EBLM) is aimed to advance clinical diagnosis by researching and disseminating new knowledge, combining methods from clinical epidemiology, statistics, and social science with the traditional pathophysiological molecular approach. RESULTS: EBLM, by evaluating the role of diagnostic investigations in the clinical decision-making process with emphasis on measurable outcome, can help both in improving the quality of new scientific findings and in translating the results of good-quality research into everyday practice. CONCLUSIONS: Since there is a need to integrate many educational tools to focus the strategy on promoting the implementation of best practices, the STARD proposal for robust diagnostic test primary studies, the presence of systematic reviews of high quality, and the development of valid guidelines based on the best scientific evidence may be useful to promote an a evidence-based culture for appropriateness, efficiency, and effectiveness in laboratory medicine.     

Science in the postmodern era: Postpositivism and research in medical education

An overview of recent developments in thinking about science, scientific knowledge, and research, in particular as related to research in medical education, is presented. This article describes the transition from the modern period of science, characterized by the positivist view, to the current postmodern period, which is characterized here in terms of critical realism and social constructivism. Critical realism and social constructivism reflect postmodern thought, by emphasizing that scientific knowledge is a human, social construction based on judgment and interpretation, rather than absolute truth about a perfectly knowable external reality. The implications of the postmodern view for research in medical education, including qualitative research, are considered.     

从考试改革探索循证医学教学方法

目的通过对2003、2004年四川大学研究生<循证医学>课程试卷的对比分析,探索有效的循证医学教学方法.方法授课对象:2003、2004年四川大学选修<循证医学>的2年级医科研究生221名.考试方式:2003年包括两部分,一部分为课堂限时开卷题(80分);另一部分为循证病案(15分),总分95分.2004年为循证病案(80分),根据循证医学的原则和循证实践的5个步骤,制定统一的循证病案评价内容和评价标准.课堂限时开卷题根据标准答案统一评阅.两年的成绩均换算成100分制进行比较.结果考试成绩:2003年呈近似正态分布,2004年呈偏态分布;2003年平均分为75.5分,及格率为97.4%, 2004年平均分为69.8分,及格率95.3%;2003年基础题平均分为62.0±6.4, 综合题平均分为55.1±16.7.近80%的学生认为开设本课程很有必要;近95%的学生认为预期学习目的大部分达到,未达到目的的原因主要是时间紧.90%以上的学生认为授课内容和方式较好. 结论今后的教学应引导学生自主学习,并加强学生运用所学的知识,综合分析和解决实际问题的能力.     

A matter of heart: the general practitioner consultation in an evidence-based world

This article is based on a keynote presentation at the 12th Nordic Congress in General Practice in Trondheim, Norway in September 2002. The aim was to demonstrate the strengths and limitations of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in a primary healthcare setting. The presentation comprised two separate lectures discussing an authentic case history from everyday practice that had been presented to the authors by the congress organisers. Initially, Peter Nilsson overviews the correct approach to the situation as described according to EBM. Subsequently, Linn Getz questions whether we can be sure that application of EBM is necessarily in this particular patient's best interests. The title of the presentation, 'A matter of heart', has a double meaning. On the one hand it indicates an update on preventive cardiology, on the other it addresses the importance of academic courage (coeur = heart) among members of the medical community. The general practitioner is in a unique position to observe the interaction between the scientific paradigm of biomedicine and individuals, whether suffering from ill health or considering themselves healthy. It is our privilege and professional duty to reflect upon clinical experience and be open to critical debate.     

循证医学与临床实践

目前循证医学方法学已广泛应用于临床医疗实践,指导、制定临床各科疾病的治疗方案,评价药物、治疗方案的有效性、适用性,以及为政府部门制定卫生政策、新药的研究、开发评价提供证据,并已形成了许多相关学科。介绍循证医学对临床医疗、中医药发展和药学研究的影响及其临床指导作用,提倡在临床医疗实践中,充分应用循证医学的原则与方法,为临床、科研、卫生决策、医学教育提供最佳证据,并应用最佳证据指导临床决策。     

循证医学在康复临床中的应用

在康复医学领域如何开展循证医学?循证医学证据的分级,实践循证医学的步骤,以及怎样才能够通过临床医师参与和利用Cochrane协作网、阅读和应用循证医学文献来寻找到目前最好的证据,以解决患者的实际问题;循证医学应用于心肺疾患、神经系统疾患、骨关节疾患等已取得较好的经济效益和社会效益;而目前的部分系统评价所收集的原始文献尚不充分,大部分缺乏大型、多中心随机对照试验的支持,有的系统评价无法得出对临床有帮助的结论。文章综述了康复科主要相关疾病的循证医学研究概况,为临床康复医师如何实践循证医学和进行康复医学科研提供参考。     

If not evidence,then what? Or does medicine really need a base?

This essay analyses the concept of ' base' in relation to its use in evidence-based medicine (EBM). It evaluates the extent to which evidence provides a sufficient base for health care to rest and discusses whether medicine needs a base, and, if so, what are the other possible candidates. This paper will argue that EBM is linked epistemologically to the theory of foundationalism and shows how important criticisms of EBM emerge from anti-foundationalist epistemologies and interpretive frameworks. Drawing from recent writings in the philosophy of science, it is argued that there is a need to see multiple perspectives relevant to the practice and understanding of medicine.     

循证医学的发展与临床医学

循证医学正越来越深刻地影响着临床医学实践。在临床医疗实践中,充分应用循证医学的原则与方法,可为临床、科研、卫生决策、医学教育等提供最佳证据,并应用最佳证据指导临床决策。通过循证医学的概念、物理结构(Cochrane协作网)、主要期刊;进一步论述了循证医学与临床医学的相互关系及其应用于临床的重要指导意义,强调了单凭推理或病理生理学理论来指导临床行为有时是不可靠的。并通过具体实例说明了循证医学在临床实践中所起的重要作用。     

Evidentiary challenges to evidence-based medicine

The evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement has exerted a strong influence on contemporary medicine. It has been used to define the hierarchy of knowledge in clinical medicine by classifying clinical findings according to the perceived relevance and validity of the respective methodologies of studies from which evidence was collected. In the spectrum of theories of knowledge, EBM predominantly relies on findings obtained from population-derived clinical research. This reliance on knowledge obtained from population studies sharply contrasts with a physiologic model of clinical knowledge advocated by basic science researchers and many clinicians. An apparent schism between proponents of physiologic and population models in the approach to the practice of medicine has been created. This dichotomy between practising physicians and EBM physicians in the approach to clinical knowledge should not be irreconcilable. We advocate a consilient approach to the interpretation of evidence and the integration of medical knowledge. This approach relies on 'linking of facts and fact-based theory across various disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation'.