Practitioners In Clinical Settings Research Articles

Between formal and enacted policy: changing the contours of boundaries

This study examines the strategies of the biomedical discourse vis-à-vis the growing public demand for alternative medicine by comparing formal and informal claims for jurisdiction. The analysis is based on two main sources of data from Israel: (a) two formal position statements, and (b) a series of participant observations and interviews with practitioners in clinical settings where biomedical and alternative practitioners collaborate. At the formal level, the biomedical discourse seeks to secure its dominant position by drawing strict cognitive and moral lines differentiating “proper biomedicine” from “improper alternative medicine.” At this level alternative medicine appears morally “contaminated” and its knowledge-base delegitimized by extreme forms of boundary-work. At the informal level, the contour of boundaries change. In the hospital field where alternative and biomedical practitioners are collaborating, mutual respect was expressed even as social and symbolic boundaries were being demarcated. Modifying the forms of boundary-work appears to be biomedicine's reactive strategy in the field to changing environmental and market demands. It is a strategy that allows biomedical discourse to absorb its competitor within its professional jurisdiction with no battle, while retaining absolute epistemological hegemony and Institutional Control.

Barriers to dissemination of evidence-based practices: Addressing practitioners' concerns about manual-based psychotherapies.

The last several years have seen much debate over the appropriateness and viability of empirically supported manual-based psychotherapies for clinical practice. While the majority of discussions have focused on the strengths or weaknesses of evidence-based treatments, and the differences between research and clinical practice, scant attention has been paid to addressing the actual concerns of practitioners in clinical settings. Based on the available research, and our experiences with training and supervision in manual-based treatments, we discuss practitioners' most common concerns, including (a) effects on the therapeutic relationship, (b) unmet client needs, (c) competence and job satisfaction, (d) treatment credibility, (e) restriction of clinical innovation, and (f) feasibility of manual-based treatments. Rather than arguing that these concerns are unwarranted, we suggest future directions the field must take if evidence-based treatments are to be viable and effective in clinical practice. Starting with the assumption that these treatments have much (but not everything) to offer practitioners in clinical settings leads to qualitative and quantitative research questions involving all parties with an interest in evidence-based practice.

Bridging the gap between laboratory and clinic in child and adolescent psychotherapy.

Meta-analyses of laboratory outcome studies reveal beneficial effects of psychotherapy with children and adolescents. However, the research therapy in most of those lab studies differs from everyday clinic therapy in several ways, and the 9 studies of clinic therapy the authors have found show markedly poorer outcomes than research therapy studies. These findings suggest a need to bridge the long-standing gap between outcome researchers and clinicians. Three kinds of bridging research are proposed and illustrated: (a) enriching the research data base on treatment effects by practitioners in clinical settings--including private practice and health maintenance organizations, (b) identifying features of research therapy that account for positive outcomes and applying those features to clinical practice, and (c) exporting lab-tested treatments to clinics and assessing their effects with referred youths. If these bridging strategies were widely adopted, despite the numerous obstacles described herein, real progress might be made toward more effective treatment in clinical practice.

Critical care nurse practitioners: evolution of the advanced practice nursing role

This literature review was done to explore the use of master's-prepared nurse practitioners to manage critically ill patients. Data-based, anecdotal, clinical, analytic, and position papers published over the past 10 years in the medical and nursing literature were reviewed. This article synthesizes findings on the use of nurse practitioners in clinical settings including primary and specialty care settings, describes favorable outcomes of advanced practice nurses, and identifies factors that must be addressed as these roles increase in use in critical care settings. Nurse practitioners' movement into critical care settings should be undertaken. Additional federal support to ensure the preparation of these practitioners in adequate numbers is needed. Attention to issues of direct reimbursement, salaries, impact of changing role boundaries, malpractice coverage, and prescription privileges must be addressed. Research programs to examine the effect of nurse practitioners in specialized care should continue.