Post-trauma: Is evidence based practice a fantasy?

Trauma, bereavement, and loss are universal human experiences. Much has been written about the process that the bereaved go through following the loss of a loved one. Recent events such as 9/11, earthquakes in Turkey, genocides in Rwanda, community conflict in Northern Ireland, and the Asian Tsunami Disaster have drawn unprecedented public attention to the subject of traumatic bereavement. Increasingly, it is recognised that while most people are able to cope with loss generally by eventually restructuring their lives, those bereaved in traumatic circumstance often find it extremely difficult. As a consequence, a plethora of interventions have emerged, however, to-date, little is know about their actual effectiveness in helping the bereaved. With the emphasis of health and welfare professions on evidencebased practice (EBP) greater than ever and a raising awareness of accountability as key element of ethical practice, the call for EBP in traumatic bereavement is compelling. Using examples from work carried out in Northern Ireland, we look at the backdrop of the issues involved, describe some of the most commonly used therapeutic interventions, and explore the possibility of evidence-based practice.

The postmodernist war on evidence-based practice

In this paper, we examine the war of words between those who contend that health care practice, including nursing, should primarily be informed by research (the evidence-based practice movement), and those who argue that there should be no restrictions on the sources of knowledge used by practitioners (the postmodernists). We review the postmodernist interventions of Dave Holmes and his colleagues, observing that the postmodernist style to which they adhere, which includes the use of continental philosophy, metaphors, and acerbic delivery, tends to obscure their substantive arguments. The heated nature of some responses to them has tended to have the same effect. However, the substantive arguments are important. Five main postmodernist charges are identified and discussed. The first argument, that the notion of ‘best evidence’ implies a hierarchical and exclusivist approach to knowledge, is persuasive. However, the contention that this hierarchy is maintained by the combined pressures of capitalism and vested interests within academia and the health services, is less well founded. Nevertheless, postmodernist contentions that the hierarchy embraced by the evidence-based practice movement damages health care because it excludes other forms of evidence that are needed to understand the complexity of care, it marginalizes important aspects of clinical knowledge, and it fails to take account of individuals or their experience, are all seen to be of some merit. However, we do not share the postmodernist conclusion that this adds up to a fascist order. Instead, we characterize evidence-based practice as a necessary but not sufficient component of health care knowledge.