PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10895118

Achieving change through reflective practice: closing the loop.

Abstract

This paper draws on a small scale, exploratory study which was conducted in the clinical area in the early 1990s (Page 1992). The study drew on the principles of reflective practice in order to enable practitioners to identify learning needs in relation to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) procedures. Whilst considerable benefit from the reflective sessions was noted, one unanticipated and unpalatable outcome was what might be termed professional apathy. This was manifest in several ways, most importantly in that issues 'for action', identified through reflection, were not prioritised or acted upon. Whilst partial responsibility for this may lie with the somewhat naive way in which the reflective process was facilitated, some responsibility also rests with the nurses in question. One possible explanation is that, for changes in practice to occur, the planning and management of change should form an integral part of the reflective cycle. This point has been largely absent in the reflection literature to date. Such concerns are reviewed here in the context of nurse education's ongoing involvement with the notion of reflective practice and the role of the educationalist in the clinical area. The current political backdrop of 'quality initiatives' to create and demonstrate high standards of clinical care may be useful in advancing the debate.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Page, L Meerabeau. 2000. Achieving change through reflective practice: closing the loop.. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2000.0430

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Perceptions and attitudes of clinical oncologists on complementary and alternative medicine: a nationwide survey in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasing worldwide because of the growing public interest in natural or holistic therapies and because of the flow of information through the Internet. However, there is a lack of communication between cancer patients and their physicians on topics relating to CAM. The authors performed a cross-sectional survey to evaluate the perceptions and attitudes of Japanese clinical oncologists toward cancer CAM. METHODS: The CAM questionnaires were sent to 2118 clinical oncologists. The questionnaires gathered data on background (age, gender, years in practice, specialty, and knowledge of cancer CAM), perception (effectiveness/ineffectiveness, scientific evidence, and drug interactions), and attitude (experience with and response to CAM users). Questions about oncologists' perceptions and attitudes to CAM were limited to herbs and other natural products that were sold over the counter. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six questionnaires were returned as undeliverable. Of the remaining questionnaires, 751 were returned (a response rate of 39%). Two-thirds of the responders were surgical oncologists and most of the remaining responders were medical oncologists. The majority of oncologists (82%) believed that CAM products were ineffective against cancer. The main reason for this belief was a lack of reliable information (as cited by 85% of oncologists). Only 13% of oncologists had experienced CAM-associated disease improvement in their cancer patients. Of all the oncologists, 84% considered the possibility of drug interactions between anticancer drugs and CAM products. The majority of oncologists (80%) replied that they could neither promote the use of CAM products nor recommend quitting the products, when they were asked about the use of CAM products by cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Negative perceptions of CAM products persist among clinical oncologists. A lack of proven effectiveness of CAM products and concerns about drug interactions with anticancer treatment suggest a need for both accurate information on CAM products and clinical trials.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗