I remember an instance about 10 years ago we RTs were complaining about kids with RSV automatically getting albuterol every Q4 hours. We complained because the albuterol had no effect on the excessive secretions and crackles, and the lung sounds generally showed no signs of bronchospasm.
So one day I come to work and there's this note on the board. It's actually an article, and on top is the note was written in my bosses writing: "Read and sign." The article showed that there is proof albuterol works for RSV. One hundred RSV kids were given albuterol. An x-ray was taken on the day of admission and on the day of discharge. On all the patients the post x-ray was better. The reason for this, the study concluded, was because of the albuterol.
Now, if that's not a bunch of BS I don't know what is. I refused to sign the note. My boss told me I had to. I said, "I read and I won't sign because those study results are poppycock. I can't believe you want me to sign that."
I signed it. I gave in, as we RTs usually do.
Facebook
Twitter
2 comments:
My research methodologies professor would be in a fit if she saw this "study". I would have declined to sign it, too. Please, please, please tell me that it wasn't peer-reviewed. I'd lose all hope in humanity if it is...
This occurred about 10 years ago, so said article has long since vanished. Although I'm certain it was a peer reviewed article, considering my bosses like to keep up on their RT wisdom. To me, it was just another of how we need to be careful as we interpret the results of studies.
Post a Comment