The UK Reiki Federation - Research & Development

RCCM Advice on Research

In July 1999 a group from the UK Reiki Federation attended a day on research facilitated by Andrew Vickers of the RCCM (The Research Council for Complementary Medicine - www.rccm.org.uk). The RCCM undertakes, promotes and evaluates rigorous research in complementary medicine to encourage safe and effective practice, and improve patient care. The following are extracts from some of their publications.

 

Taken from:'Advice for First Time Researchers - A Resource Pack' (February 1999)

The RCCM believes that research is extremely difficult to do well; you need resources and expertise but, most of all, it helps to have experience.

Many people who contact the RCCM believe they have research experience. They may site a student project, for example. Such work is often limited in scope: little student work manages to produce information about the world that is also new, reliable and useful. We usually define an individual as having research experience if they have published original research in a peer-reviewed, health-related journal.

Getting involved in research

There are three general ways in which practitioners can get involved in research

• Practitioners can (and should) use the results of research to modify their own practice. They require a basic understanding of the research process in order to understand and evaluate published studies.
• Some practitioners study their own practice in order to improve the service they provide to their patients. This is generally known as "audit" and is a method of ensuring high quality care. The results of audits are often only relevant to the practice where the study was and are rarely published.
• A few practitioners wish to undertake original research which aims to answer a question of a general nature. Though this might be a question about the effectiveness of an intervention (e.g. does traditional acupuncture lead to greater improvements in migraine symptoms than usual GP care?), there are many other important types of question in health research: a survey would be one example. Undertaking original research is difficult and time consuming and requires the development of specialist skills.

…… Research has been likened to mountain climbing: first timers rarely get to the top without the guidance of an experienced individual. It is particularly useful for researchers to collaborate with someone based in an institution such as a medical school or university. Institutions have valuable resources, such as library facilities or statistical advice. Researchers without institutional support and advice often fail to bring research to a satisfactory conclusion.

 

Taken from 'Clinical Audit and Complementary Medicine: Colloquium Report. April 1997.'

What is audit and what can it do?

• Audit is defined by the DoH (Department of Health) as, "the systematic critical analysis of the quality of care, including procedures used for the diagnosis and treatment, the use the resources, and the resulting outcome on quality of life for the patient."
• Audit aims to improve the quality of care given to patients. It differs from pure research. Its emphasis is on change.
• Audit acknowledges the individual practitioner's ability to set appropriate standards of care.
• It is more likely to be successful if it focuses on the process of patient care rather than on outcomes.
• It is important to remember that audit itself is a process, in which we engage. Audit is not a goal to be reached.
• Audit provides a framework for setting and increasing adherence to national standards of good practice. Very few complementary medicine professions have explicit standards for good practice.
• GP's are looking for complementary practitioners who are able to say, "I understand the principles of Audit and would be prepared to work with you on this."

Note: All areas of the health service are audited as a matter of routine. This is why it is important that complementary practitioners understand the process and how to implement it.

Audit cannot be used to prove therapy effectiveness.

Practitioners often think that they can collect data on the health of their patients and use audit to investigate whether or not their therapy works. But audit is a very poor way of answering this question. Reliable evidence on effectiveness is best provided by clinical trials.

In contrast, audit is based on observation and answers a different type of question altogether. Audit asks, "am I doing what I should be doing?" and then "have these changes to my practice made me more able to do what I should be doing?" Audit depends upon existing knowledge: knowledge of what is effective; of what is considered good practice; of what benefits patients. It supplements effectiveness research. It is generally agreed that the first step is to find out what is effective. Only then can we use audit to help make sure this is being done.

 

Quote from National Institute for Clinical Excellence

"There has been much talk amongst health professionals about 'evidence based medicine' but it remains unclear what constitutes 'evidence', and who is best placed to determine 'best evidence'."

 

top

 

---