McKenna, H (2010) Critical care: does profusion of evidence lead to confusion in practice? Nursing in Critical Care, 15 (6). pp. 285-290. [Journal article]
Full text not available from this repository.
There have been a plethora of articles on evidence-based practice or its many derivative terms (evidence-based nursing, evidence-based medicine, evidence-based health care, etc.). However, the word ‘based’ implies an almost unquestioning belief in evidence. I will argue that the term ‘Evidence Informed Practice’ is probably more accurate. This argument will be underpinned by Archie Cochrane's ‘road to Damascus' questioning of the value of soft over hard interventions and challenge what is held up as gold-standard evidence. The differences in definitions of evidence-based practice will also be discussed. Carper's identification of ethical, aesthetic and personal knowing will be used to debunk the myth that empirical evidence is always the gold standard for care and treatment. It will be argued that empirical evidence can be ignored when it clashes with other types of evidence. Finally, the tension between certainty and agreement with evidence will be explored.
|Item Type:||Journal article|
|Keywords:||Critical care;Evidence-based practice;Hierarchy of evidence;Intensive care;Nursing knowledge;Research methods|
|Faculties and Schools:||Faculty of Life and Health Sciences > School of Nursing|
Faculty of Life and Health Sciences
|Research Institutes and Groups:||Institute of Nursing and Health Research|
|Deposited By:||Barbara Wilson (Admin)|
|Deposited On:||16 Aug 2011 08:26|
|Last Modified:||16 Aug 2011 08:26|
Repository Staff Only: item control page