On 28-Feb-03 Peter Griffiths wrote:
> The question comes to my mind - what has this to do with evidence? I
> am not aware of evidence that the MDS in any of its forms has
> produced improvements in clinical practice (I'm happy to be corrected
> on this).
> [...]
> So why am i dipping my oar in? Two points - one is that I presume that
> the reason this was posted here in the first place is the equation
> data-evidence. It is not - mindless collection of data is (in my
> opinion) antithetical to the spirit and practie of evidence based
> health care.
> [...]
The point of Steve Thains post was that "data" would be recorded
in circumstances likely to produce low quality data; IF this
were then used to influence clinical practice (or, perhaps more
sinister, to support a decision not to influence clinical practice)
then that would be a bad thing.
There is certainly at least the following aspect of relevance to
evidence-based medicine: The politicians and spin-doctors can quote
conclusions derived from such "data" and claim (as they almost
certainly would) that these were "Evidence-Based" -- for this is
a Buzz Word of some Sanctity whose invocation brings Grace upon
the invoker.
Otherwise put: Going along with that kind of project without
protest makes true evidence-based practice liable to being
hijacked by the manipulators. Relevant?
Best wished to all.
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972
Date: 28-Feb-03 Time: 12:37:33
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
|