I *do* recognize the need for nursing theory

Published

but I am a bit appalled by the theory and research classes requird for my NP program while we covered the entire cardiovascular system in 1.2 hours of Patho. Why is that ??????????????????

We have Nursing Theory, Research and Research and Theory.

How are other programs compared to this one ?

What an interesting question, Timothy,

I like to hope I was a good nurse. Now, even though I didn't feel happy at all about a lot of nursing theories, I certainly did have a theoretical approach to nursing care (and nursing education.) You'd have to call it a homemade theory. I evolved from considering the patient (and student) as consumer and fellow human in the existential wasteland, to seeing, to a certain extent, the patient ( and student) as the reflection of God, precious, valuable, made in his own image. (This parallels changes in my own perspective on life).When I decided to pursue doctoral education, I knew I couldn't do research unless I felt passionate about it. I saw my passion mirrored in some of the theorists I read. I have to say that O'Brien's work, while not strictly theory, has been marvelously inspiring. I have some issues with Watson, but her affirmation of spirituality is valuable and has provided some direction.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
What an interesting question, Timothy,

I like to hope I was a good nurse. Now, even though I didn't feel happy at all about a lot of nursing theories, I certainly did have a theoretical approach to nursing care (and nursing education.) You'd have to call it a homemade theory. I evolved from considering the patient (and student) as consumer and fellow human in the existential wasteland, to seeing, to a certain extent, the patient ( and student) as the reflection of God, precious, valuable, made in his own image. (This parallels changes in my own perspective on life).

Exactly why theory is of little value. I posted this earlier in this thread:

"In truth, it is impossible to qualify a standard equation that describes the spiritual contributions of even a fraction of nurses. We are all individuals and bring our own individual spirituality to the job."

There is an argument that theory is so encompassing that you can pick and choose the elements that appeal to you to become a better nurse.

But why should that be limited to nursing theory? I do pick the spiritual elements that apply to my life and in turn to my practice. I just don't use nursing theory as my primary or even as a substantial source. My spiritual contributions to nursing are based on my whole range of experiences. To the extent that nursing theory coincides with my beliefs, it is because they are repetitions of concepts I've found and learned elsewhere.

That being the case, what is so special about nursing theory? Many if not the majority of nurses that are very good nurses discovered the same things that nursing theory can provide OUTSIDE of nursing theory. Therefore, nursing theory is neither foundational nor especially unique to the development of the spiritual tools that can allow someone to become a good nurse.

~faith,

Timothy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.

And so the real questions become:

If the vast majority of nurses can arm themselves with the spiritual tools to become good nurses INDEPENDENT of nursing theory, then what is the purpose of spending so much time and energy trying to develop a rationale of care that only principally duplicates such efforts?

Why don't we instead focus on a base of knowledge that integrates us as true professionals in the health care process?

~faith,

Timothy.

(Now, before I take a nap, let me apologize for monopolizing this thread all morning. Last night was the last night of my work 'string'. Since I don't have to go back to work tonight, I didn't go straight to bed. LOL. Of course, that probably means that I'll monopolize it again this evening when I'm up and awake and not at work . . .So my apologies in advance for that, too.)

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Let me just say this:

IHI and the 100,000 lives campaign. The thrust of the IHI is to use EBP to implement proven strategies nationwide.

Evidence based practice is NOT going away and it is exactly the interlaced knowledge base that will allow us to interface as professionals w/ our professional peers.

That's a kind of nursing theory I can relate to.

~faith,

Timothy.

In your estimation. Funny, Rogers and her theory has been around since the 60s. You may dismiss her theory but it does have its proponents, in nursing circles. And has been accepted by many. EBP is, as I have stated, the newest buzz word, with its proponents, who are trying to pass it off as a nursing theory. Kind of reminds me of the Darwin vs creationists theory.

Grannynurse:balloons:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU, ER, HH, NICU, now FNP.

I just want to make the distinction between "theory" and "basis for nursing practice"

I think a lot of the debate centers on whether or not theory should form the BASIS for practice, not whether or not it should be considered at all. (Although we have seen both sides of that too)

I'm not sayiing theory is worthless altogether - I'm just advocating for NOT having it be THE thing on which all practice is based. When we choose to approach it from a "consideration" of practice, rather than trying to force people to believe it is the underlying mesh of all practice - then it can be considered for what it is. Theoretical...

The better thing to BASE practice on is evidence. Why? Because we have proof that it is effective in getting the end result we want - and there is not a lick of buzz lingo in that.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I am new to this and have found this discussion so interesting. What does EBP and IHI stand for? I just ordered my books for my first graduate theory course. I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting on your opinions of these books please.

1. Integrated Knowledge Development in Nursing- Chinn

2. Nursing Theories- George

3. American Psychological Association-Publication Manual

I know I am a bit off topic, but I would appreciate your opinions as I start out learning about this topic which I find extremely interesting to say the least. Thanks Krissy

You may also wish to purchase A Meleis, Theoretical Nursing: Development & Progress. It gives the history of the development of theory; our discipline, scholarship, epistemology, evaluation of theories, and 11 theorists. Several nursing theorists have published books, outlining their theory, as well as research articles that have been published. Lenienger is one.

Grannynurse:balloons:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I hope this doesn't change the focus too much:

Chinn and Kramer was one of the first books I read when I started in my doctoral program at the University of South Africa, (recommended by my advisor). I thought it was a pretty good discussion of nursing knowledge and theory, after not being too involved with theory for about 25 years. Some of it must have stuck, because I have changed from a theory hater to a theory embracer. Chinn and Krammer has the advantage of being clear and well written.

(APA Manual is tedious but has the advantage of giving a format for absolutely everything. )

I agree, Chinn and Krammer were required texts for my graduate nursing theory course. Also Afaf Meleis: Theoretical Nursing: Development and Progress. I also have one of Watson anf Lenienger's textbook, which go into depth concerning their theory and it's impact on nursing knowledge. I will admit, initially I kept a dictionary handy because of some of the vocabulary but I no longer do.

Grannynurse:balloons:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
OH it's been done.

All the regulars on this site will just roll their eyes. LOL.

And inside of 10 posts, all the BSNs will be calling the ADN/ASNs underqualified or mere 'technicians' to their 'professional' status, and all the ADNs/ASNs will call the BSNs arrogant and not particularly better prepared (ala ADN programs contain more clinicals, etc.)

It's not a topic that is normally debated rationally.

Even if you bring it up as an ANA issue, it will become a BSN vs. ADN thread.

~faith,

Timothy.

Excuse me but I have not called any ADN a technician or underqualified. And I take exception to the broad brush painting of all BSNs. :angryfire I have an AAD, a BSN, a MS and am working on a MSN. I have always supported a BSN, as the only entry level for RNs, including the days I spent in my diploma program back in 1964.

Grannynurse:balloons:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU, ER, HH, NICU, now FNP.

Granny nurse - that post was not directed at you - nor was it personal. He was responding to Tulip :)

It is *MY* and a number of others experience that anytime you mention the ANA on this board it turns into an ADN vs. BSN thread. THATS what he was referring to - it had nothing to do with you so you have no reason to be offended.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Granny nurse - that post was not directed at you - nor was it personal. He was responding to Tulip :)

It is *MY* and a number of others experience that anytime you mention the ANA on this board it turns into an ADN vs. BSN thread. THATS what he was referring to - it had nothing to do with you so you have no reason to be offended.

Sorry but it was painted with a board brush. And I am known to support only one entry level, something that is definitely not popular, on this board. I am a member of the ANA. I am not a member of the FNA, it is a useless group and has been, since the early 80s, in my opinion

This goes off the subject but several years ago, the University Of South Florida wanted to expand its RN to BSN as well as generic program. Here in Florida, the number of slots that can be offered, is set by the Department of Education. All of the two year programs, of which there are five in the area, lobbied against it. USF was not allowed to expand its programs. There seems to be a mind set, that anyone who has a BSN, looks down on ADN graduates. Nothing could be further from the truth. But this is a topic for another thread.

There will always be those who see little value in attempting to define theories of a given discipline. I don't. And I have attempted to direct this discussion towards the various nursing theories and their impact on nursing education and practice. One does not have to accept the theorist I do. But keep an open mind and be willing to discussion their theorist and that impact on practice.

Sorry got to go granddaughter needs help with math homework.

Grannynurse

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU, ER, HH, NICU, now FNP.

But we are not discussing theories IMPACT on nursing - we are discussing it's use as THE basis for nursing. That distinction is necessary to this discussion.

Whether you love theory or hate theory, there is no denying it's impact on the profession. Whether that impact is viewed as positive or negative depends on our own experiences.

I personally believe there is not sufficient evidence to continue the expectation that theory should be at THE ROOT of nursing - I do not deny that it does have influence on practice, and I can agree that it can be used to guide practice. I object however to it being THE DEFINITION of nursing itself.

What needs to be used as the basis for nursing is science, validated and proven science. We are no longer expected to just place wet cloths on peoples foreheads as the major nursing intervention we are independantly allowed to perform. Today's nurse is expected to thoroughly understand pharmacology, pathophysiology, biology AS WELL AS psychology, spirituality and sociology. That doesn't leave theory OUT - it just reduces it's importance to a place that allows us to move the smoke screen aside and examine it on a level that allows us to ask - as a profession - if it should BE THE FOUNDATION.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
Excuse me but I have not called any ADN a technician or underqualified. And I take exception to the broad brush painting of all BSNs. :angryfire I have an AAD, a BSN, a MS and am working on a MSN. I have always supported a BSN, as the only entry level for RNs, including the days I spent in my diploma program back in 1964.

Grannynurse:balloons:

Just to clarify: I said that those debates tend to be emotionally vested arguments and then I gave an example of what tends to be the worst arguments - from both sides of the debates.

Yes, I did paint the BSN point of view in a broad and negative way. But, in the next sentence, I did the SAME thing regarding the ADN side of the debate.

And my point wasn't that rational people hold these views: my point was that the ADN vs. BSN debate normally boils down to these IRRATIONAL views.

I certainly didn't intend to either offend or to use those arguments as the starting point of any kind of rational debate.

~faith,

Timothy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion