Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No? - page 4

probably no other nursing diagnosis has garnered as much controversy as this one: energy field disturbance - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia scathing criticism of this nursing... Read More

  1. by   imenid37
    Whether you believe in the merits of Reiki or other types of disciplines that advocate attention to the "energy field", it is not nursing. It is not part of the basic education for nursing. The vast majority of RN's don't posess the skills to assess this situation. Therefore, it should not be a "nursing diagnosis." I do agree that much of NANDA is just worthless. This just demonstrates how someone with a leaning toward alternative healing used their pull w/ NANDA to put something forward which is not useable for the nurse at the bedside and his/her patient. May be this needs to go in the directory of Reiki, massage therapy, or some otherr field's diagnoses. It does make those at the bedside look at some of nursing's so called leaders w/ disgust for being so very out of touch. BTW, I am not slamming Reiki. Reiki could be of use to a patient who ascribes to it when performed by a practitioner who is skilled in its practice. That is not your average nurse, however.
    Last edit by imenid37 on Jan 30, '08
  2. by   DisturbedEnergy
    Quote from imenid37
    The vast majority of RN's don't posess the skills to assess this situation. Therefore, it should not be a "nursing diagnosis."
    I get your point but how skilled are most nurses at assessing "impaired religiosity" or "spiritual distress"? There are a number of NANDA diagnoses that would not be used unless you are in a nursing specialty where it applies. Nurses outside of that specialty may not be skilled at assessing the patient in relation to those diagnoses (I'm thinking of things like "Impaired Child Attachment").

    A nurse can always say "that's not my area of expertise but I'd be happy to find someone who can help." We can always refer to a chaplain, counselor, social worker, massage therapist, etc.

    As for the usefulness of NANDA diagnoses, they are helpful as a student to help us wrap our heads around the difference between a medical diagnosis vs a nursing diagnosis and they guide our careplans. I can definitely understand where they would out-live the initial benefits though. Besides, don't most facilities have a standard careplan based on the norms for the unit? Ours does.

    NANDA diagnoses, helpful learning tool - cumbersome and impractical in practice.
  3. by   Woodenpug
    Plenty of evidence shows that it does not work. http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...Topics/tt.html has a simple article and a method for testing these energy field tx's.
    One important factor in nursing is treating a patient in a culturally appropriate manner. So even though TT and the like are not actual treatments, in the sense that they have at best only a placebo effect, they should be included when culturally appropriate.
  4. by   suanna
    Is it no wonder that nursing is trivialized by the medical community. Can anyone honestly say we are a respectable, science based profession when they read that diagnosis? Nursing has a long way to go! When I read stuff like this I'm embarrassed to say I'm a nurse.
    Last edit by sirI on Jan 30, '08
  5. by   zenman
    I wouldn't worry too much about losing your status. I decided to go back and study the original mind-body practitioners and you would be amazed at the health professionals who are doing the same. Lot's of nurses, psychologists, physicians...and even three physicists that I've studied with.

    "Shamanic experiences are quite natural, only our culture has become so

    removed from them that even our scientific observers do not possess the

    appropriate concepts or experience to understand them." - Ian Prattis

    "Many shamanic techniques make good

    psychological and scientific sense."

    - Roger Walsh, M.D., Ph.D.
  6. by   fasolagrrl
    "I do feel & see energy fields. Say what you will, it is what it is."

    They just don't exist.
    Last edit by sirI on Feb 23, '08
  7. by   leslie :-D
    of course we have energy fields!

    life is energy.
    man is energy.

    but w/o a concrete foundation in which to apply it, there are many, MANY more dx's that could address disturbed energy, and put everything back in balance.

    i think the dx is futile.
    but that doesn't negate my beliefs about energy fields.

    there's much to be said about western medicine.
    not all of it is founded.

  8. by   holiday2525
    I've included it in one of my assignments. I put it in because the pt. was that type pf pt, i.e. hippi-ish, friut and granola, all natural cosmic balance type person.
    While I don't think it belong in a nursing dx, I think this whole thing with nursing dx is garbage anyway - but I'm a student what do I know. Actually I'm a former behavoiral medicine phd student that ran out of time, we always worked of the med dx, and I guess I still do.
  9. by   LilgirlRN
    Ya know let people believe what they wanna believe. Everyone has a different opinion. If it works for them it works. Chinese medicine has been around for a long time, personally I don't see how a bear's gall bladder can help me in anyway, but they do. It's like taking sugar pills, works for some.... the placebo effect.
  10. by   suanna
    Thank you! I am now so much more thankful to be out of school and away from the "nursing diagnosis" fluff. As long as we allow nonsense like this to infiltrate our practice we will have trouble getting people to perceive the practice of nursing as a profession. How is the disturbance in the energy field measured? What factors improve the energy fields flow of make it worse? What was the patients baseling energy flow? Unless we can answer these questions it isn't science- it's just new-age techno-babble. This stuff belongs in the National Enquirer, not nursing education. When I read that stuff like this in our practice I am embarrassed to be a nurse.
  11. by   CitrusBeeRN
    This nursing dx. was my all-time fave in school!! Much to the chagrin of my clinical instructors, I included it in a few care plans. Someone has to be concerned about the patients' 'energy field,' right?! :wink2:
  12. by   healingtouchRN
    for those ney-sayers, do a little research. Read the works of Dr Barbara Brennan, Dr Valerie Hunt, Dr Carolyn Myss, Dr Deloris Kreger, Dr Herbert Benson, Dr Barbara Dossey, Dr Larry Dossey, Janet Mentgen, RN, Dr Erminia Guarneri, Rauni King, RN, Dr Victoria Slater, & Dr Candice Pert, Dr Martha Rogers; just to rattle off a few. These are pioneers in the field of energy medicine and required reading for those in Healing Touch Program training.
    Everything has an energy field. It has nothing to do with belief. It just is. Just because someone is embarrased by talking about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Be forward in your thinking-non judgemental & you can really learn about something. If someone had told me 20 years ago I would have a board certification as a Healing Touch Practitioner, and working on a Master's in Natural Wellness, I would have said "do what?". Experience & Patience is the best teacher. Read, open your mind. Better yet, make an appointment & have a go at it.
  13. by   talaxandra
    Quote from healingtouchRN
    Everything has an energy field. It has nothing to do with belief. It just is. Just because someone is embarrased by talking about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    Speaking as one of those who have expressed embarassment at the NANDA diagnosis of disturbed energy field, a nay-sayer, if you will: it's not that I'm discomforted by talking about the concept. Rather I feel embarassed as a member of the nursing profession that something so unquantifiable, unmeasurable, as ephemeral as an energy field is included in a list of potential and actual problems, alongside such practical, measurable issues as wound care and pain management.

    My discomfort is two-fold. The first is, as I mentioned, that this condition is not measurable or quantifiable, by anyone. Wounds have a cause, can be described, have proven interventions, and progress toward healing can be consistently and objectively evaluated and recorded. Pain can be quantified and described, and interventions (from analgesia to distraction therapy) can be trialled, evaluated and tweaked. Energy fields cannot be measured, visualised or recorded, and any interventions cannot be evaluated.

    The second reason is that energy field therapies are still very much in the alternative fringe; while conventional medicine is beginning to investigate and evaluate some other complementary therapies, this falls more into the homeopathy and shark cartilage for cancer treatment. When other kinds of untested treatments (like experimental medications) are used, patients are informed that this is the case, and they are closely monitored. And there is certainly controversy around the validity off energy field therapies, and about the qualifications of some of its proponents, particularly Caroline Myss, who "claims to hold a Ph.D. in 'intuition and energy medicine', but the degree was granted by Greenwich University, a now-defunct correspondence school that was never accredited to deliver higher education awards by any recognized government accreditation authority." (Wikipedia)

    Just because there are people who aren't embarassed talking about it doesn't mean it does exist.