ECT Nursing Editorial from Ireland
Donohue G, Keogh B.J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2020 Dec 7. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12719. Online ahead of print.
The final paragraph is copied below:
If mental health service users and their relatives are to be best served in terms of treatment options, then there is an onus on mental health nurses to challenge contemporary discourse and to clarify preconceived myths using scientific evidence. However, consensus is also needed about the scientific evidence to support the use of ECT with its utility and effectiveness often cited in the absence of robust research to support it. Read et al. (2020), following a systematic review, conclude that the data to support the efficacy of ECT in the treatment of severely depressed people are not available. They argue that ECT should not be used until randomized, placebo‐controlled studies can ascertain if it is effective or not. This is in conflict with an update presented by Bewernick and Schlaepfer (2015) which suggests there is level 1 evidence to support both acute and long terms efficacy. Debates like these leave mental health nurses struggling to square their values with a procedure that continues to be administered in the absence of a contemporary, thorough and nuanced conversation about ECT. This conversation is necessary so that unexamined attitudes do not become a barrier to facilitating positive change in practice.
This is relatively positive call for better nursing education in ECT, as well as more practical experience for nurses on ECT services.
My only critique is that it suffers from the need for "balance" and the opposing argument (not enough data on ECT efficacy) is represented by the totally discredited John Read citation.
And I wish the title had indicated the directionality of the rethinking...why not just make it, "Do we need a more positive attitude about ECT?"
Worth reading in full, to know what's out there, ~5 minutes.
Comments
Post a Comment