Patient teaching or patient counselling?

Careless or confused use of terms such as information giving, teaching and counselling may lead to inadequate understanding and practice. In view of the progress made in this area, designed to help patients cope with illness and treatment, this paper aims to clarify and identify similarities and differences between these activities and discuss their relevance for those in most need of these types of care. Having recognised the complexity and persistence of such needs, patients, their relatives and nurses should perhaps decide their respective roles and work towards improving the quality of and opportunities for such interventions.     

Chemotherapy-induced nausea

The rubric complementary medicine covers a variety of approaches that may seem alike only in their being outside conventional care and training. We have asked experienced practitioners to present their own pieces of this jigsaw, realising that these clinical fragments, when seen together, create excitement but also confusion. Of course, this forum is not intended to be a comprehensive review of relevant complementary treatments, and often the individual apporaches to clinical problems will appear totally unrelated, while their apparent effectiveness stretches the biomedical model and conventional research methodology beyond their capacity. With this in mind, we intend that forthcoming articles and reviews will expand on the therapies themselves, and discuss the evidence supporting them.     

Reflective practice: a critique of the work of Argyris and Schön

The seminal work of Argyris and Schon on action theories, technical rationality and reflective practice is reviewed, it is argued that their work reflects important inconsistencies between their theorizing and the pedagogical interventions they implemented/recommended The implications of the results of these inconsistencies, which appear mirrored in nurse-education programmes in the United Kingdom and Australia, are discussed Tentative suggestions for the provision of a more adequate practical pedagogy are included     

Eye opening of the newborn at and up to 20 minutes after birth

Early eye contact between mother and baby is considered important in the attachment process between mother and baby. How soon after birth is it possible for eye contact to occur? How soon after birth will a baby open his eyes spontaneously? Where is the baby physically at that time? Is hospital labour ward routine conducive to early eye-to-eye contact between mother and baby? Discussing these questions with midwifery colleagues, it became apparent that we were unable to answer with any degree of certainty, the question ‘How soon after birth will a baby open his eyes spontaneously?’ It was felt that ‘most babies open their eyes at or very soon after birth’. How soon was ‘very soon’? and did all babies open their eyes soon after birth? Were there any observable influencing factors? If so, what were they? In this study of 104 babies, 30 babies opened their eyes at birth, and the remainder, except three, opened their eyes ranging from within 1 minute of birth to within 20 minutes of birth (20 minutes being the time limit set for the study). Some babies were observed to open their eyes momentarily only the very first time, keeping their eyes open longer subsequently.