Nursing diagnosis "altered energy field"

[paphgrl]

"Altered energy diagnosis"

Do you support this NANDA diagnosis? Or do you feel that this diagnosis threatens the legitamacy of our profession? Nanda still stands behind it. What are your thoughts?

paphgrl

[clee1]

I don't know.... call me nuts, but IMHO, I think the whole "nursing diagnosis" concept is a steaming pile of night soil from a particularly well-fed bull.

APIE is great; ADPIE is a crock.

[Balder_LPN, LPN]

Actually what would be really interesting to do is to have people who are very familiar with TT picked say 3 best highest quality studies. Then we can all review it in detail together. And people who are really against it do the same thing. So we have 6 studies (or maybe we can do 2 each, less work). Good exercise for everyone (students to experienced nurses) and for some of us a good review of what is good science and what is good evidence based practice. This assume we all can get a hold of the studies without shelling out mega bucks of course.

come on .... lets do that.

start posting some studies guys, I will be looking for some tonight.

[Indy, LPN, LVN]

I'm fairly fresh out of school, and this energy field disturbance thing is included in the Mosby book that I used in my care plans. I did not use it in any care plans in school.

I don't approve of the entire idea of nursing diagnosis. If you want to call them "categories of symptoms" then that would be closer to a description of what they did for me in school. I wasn't a CNA, or a LPN first, and lacked self confidence and possibly a good deal of common sense to boot.

So I would read the entire list of nursing interventions for some of the common nursing diagnoses that I kept using over and over. It's really good info in there, about what you CAN possibly do for your patient. It takes the esoteric knowledge of what happens during a disease and turns it into "look, here is what you do when you see this" type knowledge. Or it did for me; there were some things that happened to my patients in school, that the nurses did a bunch of things for and then left me to wonder how they knew to do all those things so quickly. So for the slack-jawed, bookworm, wide-eyed student that I was, the Mosby book was a lifesaver. I could stock away some ideas for care, maybe write them down, and keep these things in mind for either the next day or the next time I saw something.

I knew that these are things I would learn with experience, but lacking that, I took from that book what I needed to do well in clinical. But I don't agree with the idea that it's got to be a separate category of "what's wrong with this person." I don't have problems with just using medical diagnoses and learning what practical problems they present, and what actual things to do for the patient with that medical diagnosis.

So nursing diagnoses, for the most part, seem to me to be an ivory tower type invention to make us look like we know stuff that other people don't. Well we do know stuff that lay people might not know, and the physician might not be paying attention enough to know, but I guarantee you that the doctor knows enough pathophysiology to understand at least as much as the nurse does about the patient. It doesn't have to be a separate arena of knowledge altogether. And yes, I agree with ... I forgot her name now... the lady who wrote "Nursing Against The Odds" on the subject of nursing diagnosis.

Now we've got this care plan form at work, that we didn't have previously, with ... not nursing diagnoses, thank god, but just goals that we are supposed to put down for the patient. I really feel that I don't have time to write down my goals when I'm so busy busting my butt to achieve them.

One of our nurses was busy critiquing the goals in the stack of forms, and saying what she would write instead (yes, she wasn't working like the rest of us try to) and didn't realize she was spitting out some garbled twisted form of nursing diagnosis instead of goals. It was kind of ironic, quite amusing to see that the one person I can point to in my unit who works the least and talks the most, can spit out nursing diagnoses like they are second nature.

So I have no good things to say about any nursing diagnosis, really. I just appreciated the listing of interventions in a halfway understandable format.

[zenman]

But I really believe in the evidence based practice standards, and there is nothing more than anecdotal evidence to support this stuff (even if there is ALOT of anecdotal evedence)

no one has yet published a REPRODUCABLE, PEER REVIEWED study, if anyone knows of some lets see it and we can review and critique the study

Didn't that basic research course you took in school teach you how to look up studies? :chuckle

[zenman]

But do we want to go there as nurses, or should we leave that to the alt. medicine practioners. I'm on the fence as well.

If nurses "touch" people, it should stay. And some nursing schools now offer some type of alternative courses. Here's an example of how I went there as a nurse: I walked on a unit once at night and heard a little old Japanese lady moaning. The nurses were sitting at the station and told me that they had already given her all the pain meds they could. I went in to her and cupped her broken shoulder between my hands and just visualized my hands heating up. After a few minutes she said "thank you," I took my hands away and left. That's "real" nursing and it's sad that the other nurses had run out of options.

Some martial artists can hurt you a lot more using energy techniques. In these situations I love for skeptics to tell me it doesn't happen! After I'm done, very few ask for empirical proof, LOL!:roll

[zenman]

To be scientific, "energy field disturbance" is a liter of feces give or take a few ml's.

You want to explain your "Lack of Knowledge related to Quantum Physics? Throw your cell phone away, quick!

"The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the power of all true science." Albert Einstein

"My new understanding of the nature of life not only corroborated my research, but also, I realized, contradicted another belief of mainstream science that I had been propoundeding to my students - the belief that allopathic medicine is the only kind of medicine that merits consideration in medical school. By finally giving energy-based environment its due, it provided the foundation for the science and philosophy of complementary medicine and the spiritual wisdom of ancient and modern faiths as well as for allopathic medicine." Bruce Lipton, Ph.D. (cell biologist)

[West_Coast_Ken, BSN, RN]

I think the whole "nursing diagnosis" concept is a steaming pile of night soil from a particularly well-fed bull.

APIE is great; ADPIE is a crock.

I've got to agree from my limited exposure so far but I am holding out hope that I will learn more from the Nursing Dx. Time will tell...

And my take on "altered energy field" is that it does make the profession look a bit kooky and that is sad. We have battles enough. We don't need to make more issues for ourselves to overcome.

[danu3]

Here is an interesting TT portal

http://www.phact.org/e/tt/

It contains both pro and con TT sites. I only have time to scan a little bit, interesting portal.

[clee1]

I'm fairly fresh out of school, and this energy field disturbance thing is included in the Mosby book that I used in my care plans. I did not use it in any care plans in school.

I don't approve of the entire idea of nursing diagnosis. If you want to call them "categories of symptoms" then that would be closer to a description of what they did for me in school. I wasn't a CNA, or a LPN first, and lacked self confidence and possibly a good deal of common sense to boot.

So I would read the entire list of nursing interventions for some of the common nursing diagnoses that I kept using over and over. It's really good info in there, about what you CAN possibly do for your patient. It takes the esoteric knowledge of what happens during a disease and turns it into "look, here is what you do when you see this" type knowledge. Or it did for me; there were some things that happened to my patients in school, that the nurses did a bunch of things for and then left me to wonder how they knew to do all those things so quickly. So for the slack-jawed, bookworm, wide-eyed student that I was, the Mosby book was a lifesaver. I could stock away some ideas for care, maybe write them down, and keep these things in mind for either the next day or the next time I saw something.

I knew that these are things I would learn with experience, but lacking that, I took from that book what I needed to do well in clinical. But I don't agree with the idea that it's got to be a separate category of "what's wrong with this person." I don't have problems with just using medical diagnoses and learning what practical problems they present, and what actual things to do for the patient with that medical diagnosis.

So nursing diagnoses, for the most part, seem to me to be an ivory tower type invention to make us look like we know stuff that other people don't. Well we do know stuff that lay people might not know, and the physician might not be paying attention enough to know, but I guarantee you that the doctor knows enough pathophysiology to understand at least as much as the nurse does about the patient. It doesn't have to be a separate arena of knowledge altogether. And yes, I agree with ... I forgot her name now... the lady who wrote "Nursing Against The Odds" on the subject of nursing diagnosis.

Now we've got this care plan form at work, that we didn't have previously, with ... not nursing diagnoses, thank god, but just goals that we are supposed to put down for the patient. I really feel that I don't have time to write down my goals when I'm so busy busting my butt to achieve them.

One of our nurses was busy critiquing the goals in the stack of forms, and saying what she would write instead (yes, she wasn't working like the rest of us try to) and didn't realize she was spitting out some garbled twisted form of nursing diagnosis instead of goals. It was kind of ironic, quite amusing to see that the one person I can point to in my unit who works the least and talks the most, can spit out nursing diagnoses like they are second nature.

So I have no good things to say about any nursing diagnosis, really. I just appreciated the listing of interventions in a halfway understandable format.

:yeahthat:

[grannynurse FNP student]

Here is an interesting TT portal

http://www.phact.org/e/tt/

It contains both pro and con TT sites. I only have time to scan a little bit, interesting portal.

Interesting site. Only problem, Eric is a known detractor of TT, not the independent investigator he pretends to be. Like another poster said, he needs to throw his cell phone away.

Grannynurse:balloons:

[danu3]

Interesting site. Only problem, Eric is a known detractor of TT, not the independent investigator he pretends to be. Like another poster said, he needs to throw his cell phone away.

Grannynurse:balloons:

I place this site because it also contains sites that are pro TT.

[danu3]

Just thinking of wild ideas of how to test this TT thing (in terms of effectiveness).

One possiblity is to have three groups of people. Group A will be patients with highly qualify TT practitioner. Group B will be patients with people who do not know TT but they are taught a fake version of TT where they go through the motion of TT (i.e. putting hands 2-3 inches above skin... etc) but no attempt to modify energy whatsoever. Group C will be patients with no TT (real or fake) practioner. The patients will be randomized into the 3 groups. The researchers will not know who is a real TT and who is a fake. We will need to test a specific claim from TT, say pain management or something.

If all 3 groups comes out about the same, then TT is not effective in this study (it will need to be repeated by other researchers to get more confidence level). One can choose to do the same thing again but with a different TT claim.

If both the real TT and the fake TT came out significantly better, then there is something else going on, probably not energy field related. Maybe just the theraputic alliance has an impact, maybe placebo, maybe whatever... further research to find out what it is.

If only real TT comes out significantly better, then again we need to repeat it with other researchers and we can only conclude for this one condition we are testing. But this will give researchers motivation to test other claims.

If only real TT comes out significantly better, then another study will compare TT with other known treatments of this condition. For example, let's say pain, we can compare it with different meds, biofeedback, hypnosis, imagery techniques, ... etc. This is important because we need to know the effectiveness of TT relative to other options so we can apply the right treatment at the right situation.