Print

Print
Dear All,

I've used this slide in introductory EBM talks to medical students, which seems similar to what James was saying. To me variation and exploration should be encouraged where there is no evidence: we are basically defining ignorance. Variation should be much less where we have the strongest evidence, though we should still keep our minds open.

Inline images 1

Colin Melville
Consultant Paediatrician
Keele University

On 14 June 2016 at 08:55, Clare Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Food for thought certainly, thanks

C

Dr M Clare Taylor
Professional Lead for Occupational Therapy
Bournemouth University
[log in to unmask]
07703 888 099

> On 14 Jun 2016, at 08:49, Oliver Fisher <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I cannot speak to OT, but I personally do believe that there is a certain amount of “inhibition" of innovation by having to completely adhere to EBP guidelines and how quality data is generated to “prove that something works”. I think it’s also fair to say, that because of some of the “EBP success stories” or moreover “debunking of old (and new) myths” particularly institutional review boards and alike have become more rigorous (which is good) but sometimes less enthusiastic towards certain study proposals that could be highly innovative when they charter in to unknown territory. I think it’s important to note, that some of the greatest success stories of modern medicine (bone marrow and organ transplants, immunosuppression etc.) were achieved at a time, where “clinical trials” really meant the latter word. I believe overall the broader effect EBP/EBM has had has been great, but it has made the process very “bureaucratic” and sometimes I wonder if more time/money is being spent on trying to set up trials than actually conducting them…and that this may deter many people from actually getting involved and trying to push the envelope.
>
> Sorry - not so helpful for you to speak against the motion, but it may trigger some thoughts against what I’ve said :-)
>
> Oliver
>
>> On 14.06.2016, at 15:02, Clare Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I am soon to be taking part in a debate, the motion being that EBP stifles creativity and innovation in OT practice - I am speaking against the motion, and I would be very grateful for any thoughts from the group in this topic
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Clare
>>
>> Dr M Clare Taylor
>> Professional Lead for Occupational Therapy
>> Bournemouth University
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 07703 888 099
>> BU is a Disability Two Ticks Employer and has signed up to the Mindful Employer charter. Information about the accessibility of University buildings can be found on the BU DisabledGo webpages This email is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email, which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Bournemouth University or its subsidiary companies. Nor can any contract be formed on behalf of the University or its subsidiary companies via email.
>
BU is a Disability Two Ticks Employer and has signed up to the Mindful Employer charter. Information about the accessibility of University buildings can be found on the BU DisabledGo webpages This email is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email, which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Bournemouth University or its subsidiary companies. Nor can any contract be formed on behalf of the University or its subsidiary companies via email.



--
Colin