Disturbed Energy Field

[avatar78]

I was looking through my Doenges nursing dx book, and there is a NANDA dx of Disturbed Energy Field as evidenced by objective things like waves, spikes, color changes, or holes in the pt energy flow. What the heck?! :icon_roll I wrote it in as a possible dx on my final care plan, my teacher was cracking up.

[MisterSimba, BSN]

When nothing else has worked alternative therapies are sometimes a last hope. I hope none of you ever find yourself suffering from a disease like cancer or fibromyalgia with such horrible pain that medication isn't touching. So much for respect. . .you have a lot to learn about the power of healing.

Thank you, Daytonite! :heartbeat While I completely agree with the fact that there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of energy fields and chakras, etc, I do believe that alternative medicine can be very helpful. Reiki, for example, is very relaxing/soothing and can help a great deal in treating pain and stress/anxiety. At least it did for me.

Call me crazy, but I believe in being open-minded and being willing to learn more about alternative treatments. For example, if I ever had cancer, I would obviously follow the oncologist's treatment plan as far as chemo and other medical treatments, but where is the harm in adding in Reiki, massage, art therapy, or other alternative treatments? If anything, these treatments lift the patients' spirits and give them a few moments of rest/peace. Nothing wrong with that, in my humble opinion!

[r0b0tafflicti0n]

Maybe this is what's wrong with me.

[Koyaanisqatsi-RN]

Call me crazy, but I believe in being open-minded and being willing to learn more about alternative treatments. For example, if I ever had cancer, I would obviously follow the oncologist's treatment plan as far as chemo and other medical treatments, but where is the harm in adding in Reiki, massage, art therapy, or other alternative treatments? If anything, these treatments lift the patients' spirits and give them a few moments of rest/peace. Nothing wrong with that, in my humble opinion!

If something, ANYTHING helps a person feel better from pain or cancer treatments or whatever, I am in full support of it.

However, the issue here is not that we're just a bunch of grumpy jerks who hate people who want to make themselves feel better. The issue here is that this is not science, nor medicine, nor nursing. It is outside all of those realms. As such, it has NO PLACE in nursing as a professional diagnosis. None. It is literally no more provable or disprovable than demon posession or voodoo.

What does that tell you? If we allow one of these types of diagnoses, why not all?

[MisterSimba, BSN]

I completely agree with you there. Sorry, I guess I didn't make that clear in my post. I don't see how "blocked chakra/energy field" could make its way onto a medical chart or be used as a diagnosis either.

My point was just that these alternative treatments can be very helpful even though they are not evidence-based.

[Sarcolemma]

I think the issue here is that it is acknowledged as an official diagnosis by the same organization that is pushing for evidenced based practice

not that it may have potential (or is beneficial) as an alternative therapy

as many people (who are both for and against these alternative therapies) have pointed out, there have not been any real studies. So the burden of evidence has not been met.

[J9G2008]

I think that nursing in general has hitched its wagon to the "evidence-based practice" model as the end-all be-all of high quality care. Just because something isn't quantifiable, does not mean that it doesn't work. There have been studies on TT and Reiki, but the problem is that there really cannot be a "control" group. In all cases, hands were laid on patients, whether the practitioner used Reiki or not. So, were the calming results just from any touch being used, or from Reiki specifically? Is it possible to come near someone's energy field for any reason and not expect a change? The studies were unclear.

As for the argument that an "energy field" has not been detected, I question this. Have you never felt someone near you without using your eyes? Has your hair never stood on end when someone came near you? Every cell in our body is constantly giving off electrical impulses, which are visible in PET scans or even night-vision goggles.

I did Reiki on a patient of mine in clinicals, and she calmed down measurably (heart rate, respirations). Afterward, she was looking around the bed for the heat source I had used. She thought it was a heating pad or something. It was my hands.

As to whether it should be a NANDA diagnosis, I am not sure. But I am sure that touch is a beneficial therapy for my patients, and will continue to use it as long as they wish to receive it.

[Sarcolemma]

i'm not debating its existence or not, nor anyones subjective experiences with it

i'm saying that if you're trending into the psychospiritual realm with an official sanctioned diagnosis by the AACN you can't cherrypick....oh never mind. allnurses.com, lol

[tencat]

This 'touchy-feely' diagnosis gives MD's another reason to have little respect for Nurses. I'm not saying that alternative therapies don't help some people. It probably has more to do with whether or not the patient buys into it helping than it actually BEING helpful. But I think it's important to compartmentalize what is backed by science and what isn't in order to be taken seriously as a profession.

If a therapy can be replicated and studied, then I think it's worthy of considering as a sound therapy. But if it's as subjective as 'disturbed energy field' which cannot be measured, it's best to place it in the 'alternative therapies' category and leave it out of professional practice standards and definitions.

[amarilla, RN]

I believe you need to familiar yourself with the concept of burden of proof.

Sorry, perhaps you missed my point that sufficient research has not been done, to discredit or validate.

Honestly, I'd like to see any other subject wherein the 'research' of a nine year old girl, working under her mother's agenda with a specific intent to disprove something using questionable procedure and control in a single incidence would be taken as absolute truth.

I don't feel a need to 'familiar' myself with proof of the kind which would satisfy close-minded folks; I'm not interested in nursing research nor do I care much about meeting up against the judgment of others regarding things they don't understand.

What I do know: there are tons, tons and tons of people who seek out energy practitioners and subsequently report positive benefits. There's a reason why it's been around as long as it has, (and a helluva lot longer than TT, thanks.) That being said: my argument is less with defending a diagnosis and much more with the necessity of research into how and why it produces positive benefits.

Are you really so against more research which may possibly provide pain management and improved quality of life?

Really, I'm not understanding the indignation expressed on this thread for something so many have likely had limited contact with firsthand. Further, why can't this be discussed without the attitude and accusations of quackery?

Regards,

Southern

[hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN]

Just because something isn't quantifiable, does not mean that it doesn't work.

Yes, actually, it does.

If you claim something causes x effects, you've made a testable claim.

Unless you and other proponents of reiki et al claim that it does not cause any effect, in which case, I'd agree with you. :)

...but the problem is that there really cannot be a "control" group. In all cases, hands were laid on patients, whether the practitioner used Reiki or not. So, were the calming results just from any touch being used, or from Reiki specifically?

Sounds like a pretty decent control group to me. Have to test against placebo-- sugar pills cause all sorts of positive and negative effects, too.

Is it possible to come near someone's energy field for any reason and not expect a change? The studies were unclear.

First, even assuming the mystical "energy field", if mere presence if enough to achieve equal effect, any therapies (which supposedly require training) based off it would be bunk, would they not? Testing against placebo.

As for the argument that an "energy field" has not been detected, I question this.

Where does the energy field fit into the standard model of physics?

Have you never felt someone near you without using your eyes?

We have other non-visual yet non-supernatural senses, y'know.

Has your hair never stood on end when someone came near you?

Ditto.

Every cell in our body is constantly giving off electrical impulses, which are visible in PET scans or even night-vision goggles.

Umm, no. What you see in night-vision goggles is infrared converted to visible spectrum. Infrared isn't electrical impulses (which are electrons), but instead electromagnetic energy given off as a result of chemical reactions that cause heat. If you want to claim humans' infrared energy as our "energy field", fine. At least it's testable and quantifiable and real. Just be prepared to be mocked with arguments for the existence of your toaster's energy field, too.

PET works by first injecting you with a radioisotope. These definitely radiate electromagnetic energy (gamma rays) which can then be detected and used diagnostically.

I did Reiki on a patient of mine in clinicals, and she calmed down measurably (heart rate, respirations). Afterward, she was looking around the bed for the heat source I had used. She thought it was a heating pad or something. It was my hands.

Your hands can warm up and calm a patient. There's no doubt about this, but it isn't supernatural. Humans enjoy contact, and your hands not only provide warmth, but also insulate their heat. This is basic physics and psychology, not magic.

[hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN]

Sorry, perhaps you missed my point that sufficient research has not been done, to discredit or validate.

Then proponents of it need to stop supporting it blindly and get to work establishing data in support of their hypothesis.

Honestly, I'd like to see any other subject wherein the 'research' of a nine year old girl, working under her mother's agenda with a specific intent to disprove something using questionable procedure and control in a single incidence would be taken as absolute truth.

I'll get right to work as soon as you get to work disproving the existence of an invisible dragon in my garage. You once again have shifted the burden of proof.

I don't feel a need to 'familiar' myself with proof of the kind which would satisfy close-minded folks; I'm not interested in nursing research nor do I care much about meeting up against the judgment of others regarding things they don't understand.

This is dodging the issue by calling people who don't accept nursing practice on faith alone "closed minded". Bravo.

What I do know: there are tons, tons and tons of people who seek out energy practitioners and subsequently report positive benefits.

Document and publish double blindeds compared to control, then.

There's a reason why it's been around as long as it has, (and a helluva lot longer than TT, thanks.)

That's a poor argument-- snake oil medicine has existed since the dawn of time. Doesn't make it true or right.

That being said: my argument is less with defending a diagnosis and much more with the necessity of research into how and why it produces positive benefits.

The onus is on those making the extraordinary (and extranatural) claims to research a mechanism and design testable experiments to validate their hypotheses. Science.

Are you really so against more research which may possibly provide pain management and improved quality of life?

Straw man. Not responding.

Really, I'm not understanding the indignation expressed on this thread for something so many have likely had limited contact with firsthand. Further, why can't this be discussed without the attitude and accusations of quackery?

It is quackery precisely because it is untested and it's central concept is supernatural or "untestable" in orgin, so say proponents. That's a red flag for quackery. If you claim x has a detectable effect, you can test for that effect. Pure and simple.

[Music in My Heart]

Where does the energy field fit into the standard model of physics?

There is undoubtedly an electromagnetic field around each neuron because current is flowing... wherever current is flowing there is a related field. Now given the very, very low amperage, the fields are very weak... given that their power dissipates with the square of the distance, they're probably approaching zero within just a few microns from the neuron itself.

Beyond that, I'm with you.