Disregard the science behind the practice

[ohbet]

Why is it that some nurses,maybe those who have been in the field a long time,believe that there clinical experience is more reliable than evidenced based practice and the procedures generated from this evidence?

For example this experienced nurse doesnt deem it neccessary to follow the steps of a procedure because she believes her vast experience is more reliable than the research in which the procedure was created from.

I get this impression from certain old timers.

Any one else ran into this?

[llg, PhD, RN]

I didn't mean to imply that we should disregard the research -- just that we need to maintain a healthy skepticism toward what we find in the literature similar to the skepticism we should maintain in relation to knowledge developed through experience. It's a bad thing when the pendulum swings too far in EITHER direction.

Sometimes, "old fogeys" rely too much on their personal experience and are too resistent to change in spite of solid scientific evidence supporting the change. However sometimes, people newly out of school and/or overly infatuated with the lieterature, believe everything they read and race to implement every suggestion they find. Both groups need to moderate their behavior a bit and introduce a little skepticism into their thinking.

The best result comes when scientific knowledge (or "book learning") is combined with the knowledge gained from experience -- and that takes "wisdom" as opposed to mere "knowledge."

llg -- who has worked in 2 academic research centers and worked on many, many research projects.

[micro, RN]

llg.....humbly quoting from you

"the best result comes when scientific knowledge(or book learning) is combined with the knowledge gained from experience--and that takes 'wisdom' as opposed to mere 'knowledge.'

imho and respect,

micro

[llg, PhD, RN]

Hi, Micro,

This topic is near and dear to my heart. I have a lot of "book learning," but teach classes in "experiential learning" both here at the hospital where I work and also for conferences and meetings and things. It's amazing to me that so many people can see the value of only one type of learning and not another. To me, it seems so clear that all ways of learning and knowing can be valuable if "used correctly."

I suspect, that for some people, there is an emotional investment in a particular way of learning and/or knowing that is overwhelming. They therefore cling to that one way and hold on tight, not leaving room for there to be multiple ways of knowing. How sad!

Perhaps the key to making progress is to identify and explore those emotional attachments. That might give us clues as to how to help both the "old fogeys" and the "naive new-comers" grow a little.

llg

[mattsmom81]

Agree with Micro's and llg's posts. :)

I will maintain a healthy skepticism for 'studies'. Who is funding these 'studies' and who truly benefits from them? Where is the money going here when healthcare jumps onto the latest research bandwagon?? I ask those questions before I accept study results as gospel, as most of us know that research results can be interpreted and skewed to meet the ends of the researchers.

Speaking for many 'old fogeys' here who may be not so quick to jump on the bandwagon, we aren't 'disregarding science' as some put it. We ARE from years of experience skeptical regarding the validity of much of the 'scientific evidence' as over the years we have seen so much disproven, as mentioned.

[donmurray]

I find that a major test of the validity of any research is checking out who sponsored it.