PubMed · 8794640
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Y Shoenfeld. 1996-05-01. [Clinical practice today].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8794640/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: To describe the multicentre clinical databases that exist in the United Kingdom, to report on their quality, to explore which organisational and managerial features are associated with high quality, and to make recommendations for improvements. DESIGN: Cross sectional survey, with interviews with database custodians and search of electronic bibliographic database (PubMed). STUDIES REVIEWED: 105 clinical databases across the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Clinical databases existed in all areas of health care, but their distribution was uneven-cancer and surgery were better covered than mental health and obstetrics. They varied greatly in age, size, growth rate, and geographical areas covered. Their scope (and thus their potential uses) and the quality of the data collected also varied. The latter was not associated with any organisational characteristics. Despite impressive achievements, many faced substantial financial uncertainty. Considerable scope existed for improvements: greater use of nationally approved codes; more support from relevant professional organisations; greater involvement by nurses, allied health professionals, managers, and laypeople in database management teams; and more attention to data security and ensuring patient confidentiality. With some notable exceptions, the audit and research potential of most databases had not been realised: half the databases had each produced only four or fewer peer reviewed research articles. CONCLUSIONS: At least one clinical database support unit is needed in the United Kingdom to provide assistance in organisation and management, information technology, epidemiology, and statistics. Without such an initiative, the variable picture of databases reported here is likely to persist and their potential not be realised.
Biomedicine focuses on the biochemistry of the body, while consciousness-based medicine--holistic medicine--focuses on the individual"s experiences and conscious whole (Greek: holos, whole). Biomedicine perceives diseases as mechanical errors at the micro level, while consciousness-based medicine perceives diseases as disturbances in attitudes, perceptions, and experiences at the macro level--in the organism as a whole. Thus, consciousness-based medicine is based on the whole individual, while biomedicine is based on its smallest parts, the molecules. These two completely different points of departure make the two forms of medicine very different; they represent two different mind sets and two different frames of reference or medical paradigms. This paper explains the basic tools of clinical holistic medicine based on the life mission theory and holistic process theory, with examples of holistic healing from the holistic medical clinic.
The modern physician is using pharmaceuticals as his prime tool. Unfortunately, this tool is much less efficient than you might expect from the biochemical theory. The belief in drugs as the solution to the health problems of mankind, overlooking important existing knowledge on quality of life, personal development, and holistic healing seems to be one good reason why approximately every second citizen of our modern society is chronically ill. The biomedical paradigm and the drugs are certainly useful, because in many situations we could not do without the drugs (like antibiotics), but curing infections or diseases in young age is not without consequences, as the way we perceive health and medicine is influenced by such experiences. When we get a more severe disease in midlife, we also believe drugs will make us healthy again. But at this age, the drugs do not work efficiently anymore, because we have turned older and lost much of the biological coherence that made us heal easily when we were younger. Now we need to assume responsibility, take learning, and improve our quality of life. We need a more holistic medicine that can help us back to life by allowing us to access our hidden resources. The modern physician cannot rely solely on drugs, but must also have holistic tools in his medical toolbox. This is the only way we can improve the general health of our populations. Whenever NNT (Number Needed to Treat) is 2 or higher, the likelihood of the drug to cure the patient is less than 50%, which is not satisfying to any physician. In this case, he must ethically try something more in order to cure his patients, which is the crossroads where both traditional manual medicine and the tools of a scientific holistic medicine are helpful.