THE BACK PAGE
The Rest of the Story Guest Editorial Maureen V. Iacono, BSN, RN, CPAN Skepticism: ‘‘A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind’’1 SEASONED NURSES will find the title of this column reminiscent of a radio personality named Paul Harvey, who was well known for a program also entitled ‘‘The Rest of the Story’’ in which he shared stories with the public. Harvey often included details, facts, or forgotten portions of stories that held the listeners’ attention until the very end of the broadcast. His trademark was to captivate listeners with a paced, entertaining delivery, and withhold salient points—surprising, oftentimes delighting the audience—to end with an obscure fact or nuance that enriched the storytelling. The broadcast of course not only ‘‘told a story’’ but also served as a teachable moment, an opportunity to help the listener to think differently and expand the mind. So much information is available today to read, to engage the mind, to provoke, and enhance learning. The information can be valuable, credible, and enriching. It can serve to confirm beliefs, opinions, and perceptions, and has the potential to teach and improve knowledge. But there is also a danger that what is written is accepted without challenge or critical inquiry; that the reader may skim the literature, a journal article, a text, or a policy—and accept the written word as credible and true without seeking a depth of understanding. Readers who are not skeptical and who do not question the validity of the written word miss a valuable opportunity. It is wise to test the logic of what you are reading and deliberate its credibility. Authors make stateMaureen V. Iacono, BSN, RN, CPAN, is a PACU Nurse Manager, St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center, Syracuse, NY. Conflict of interest: None to report. Address correspondence to Maureen V. Iacono, St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center, Syracuse, NY 13202-1898; e-mail address: [email protected]. Ó 2013 by American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses 1089-9472/$36.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2013.08.003
ments or posit opinions that may be based on their experience and knowledge—but these may be skewed or less than factual. Additionally, an author’s experience may not be relevant for you because of your real-life clinical experience and expertise. There is wisdom in recognizing that questions may arise as you read a scholarly, clinical publication and raise conflicts and arguments for you. Asking questions, and raising challenges provoke scholarly inquiry and higher level thinking. Critical reading implies that the reader uses outside knowledge, biases, and values while attempting to understand and potentially accept what is written. The reader evaluates the written word and makes the decision to ultimately accept the written word as truth, and of value, or perhaps not valid or valuable at all. A critical reader may also understand that one single text, research article, or journal submission is but one portrayal of the facts—one author’s perspective and interpretation of a subject. It is a unique creation of a unique author. Reading with a critical focus may serve as a catalyst to challenge the source, pursue multiple resources, and investigate a subject or topic more thoroughly. A concrete example may clarify this line of thinking. Unless you are one of the rare perianesthesia nurses who can breeze through examinations without study, anxiety, and stress, you likely perused numerous sources of clinical information to prepare for the certification examination. I remember my agitation and frustration as I worked religiously on my review questions, and I found that for so many multiple choice questions, I could argue a few answers as possible ‘‘correct’’ choices. I made a nuisance of myself to nurse colleagues, and to anesthesia providers, as I literally followed them around with my books and my justification. I just knew there must have been a few misprints in the ‘‘acceptable’’ answers, and I spent far too much time on that issue when study time was valuable! But I was not satisfied that the written,
Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing, Vol 28, No 6 (December), 2013: pp 421-422
421
422
MAUREEN V. IACONO
published word was infallible. My skepticism proved to be valuable, although perhaps annoying! I proudly passed the certification examination in 1990. As nurses begin to understand that it is prudent to practice with the validation of evidence and results of research and that we must grow in our knowledge to promote best practices, we realize that we must read, listen, and learn about the scholarly work of perianesthesia nurse colleagues. Nursing evidence must be collected, critically appraised, validated, and applied in real clinical situations. To practice nursing based on evidence, nursing publications and didactic presentations can foster an increased understanding of the reality of its application in the perianesthesia setting. The key to understanding ‘‘the rest of the story’’ is to ask questions, exhibit curiosity, and decide
if we know of a better way to say something or finesse an idea or opinion. We must listen actively, read critically, question data, and conclusions, and drill down to understand the how, why, and what of nursing topics. We must not be lulled into complacency with the mistaken belief that an established, or even a published, author knows better or must be correct.
The next time you read a journal article, review or revise a workplace policy, or refer to the standards of nursing, make an effort to read critically and analytically. Ask questions and consider your experiential knowledge and perspectives. Make a decision based on fact and reasoning, inquiry, and validation, to use the information you have read to support your nursing practice, to change practice, or to investigate more deeply to find the rest of the story.
Reference 1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2009.
The Rest of the Story Guest Editorial Maureen V. Iacono, BSN, RN, CPAN Skepticism: ‘‘A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind’’1 SEASONED NURSES will find the title of this column reminiscent of a radio personality named Paul Harvey, who was well known for a program also entitled ‘‘The Rest of the Story’’ in which he shared stories with the public. Harvey often included details, facts, or forgotten portions of stories that held the listeners’ attention until the very end of the broadcast. His trademark was to captivate listeners with a paced, entertaining delivery, and withhold salient points—surprising, oftentimes delighting the audience—to end with an obscure fact or nuance that enriched the storytelling. The broadcast of course not only ‘‘told a story’’ but also served as a teachable moment, an opportunity to help the listener to think differently and expand the mind. So much information is available today to read, to engage the mind, to provoke, and enhance learning. The information can be valuable, credible, and enriching. It can serve to confirm beliefs, opinions, and perceptions, and has the potential to teach and improve knowledge. But there is also a danger that what is written is accepted without challenge or critical inquiry; that the reader may skim the literature, a journal article, a text, or a policy—and accept the written word as credible and true without seeking a depth of understanding. Readers who are not skeptical and who do not question the validity of the written word miss a valuable opportunity. It is wise to test the logic of what you are reading and deliberate its credibility. Authors make stateMaureen V. Iacono, BSN, RN, CPAN, is a PACU Nurse Manager, St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center, Syracuse, NY. Conflict of interest: None to report. Address correspondence to Maureen V. Iacono, St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center, Syracuse, NY 13202-1898; e-mail address: [email protected]. Ó 2013 by American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses 1089-9472/$36.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2013.08.003
ments or posit opinions that may be based on their experience and knowledge—but these may be skewed or less than factual. Additionally, an author’s experience may not be relevant for you because of your real-life clinical experience and expertise. There is wisdom in recognizing that questions may arise as you read a scholarly, clinical publication and raise conflicts and arguments for you. Asking questions, and raising challenges provoke scholarly inquiry and higher level thinking. Critical reading implies that the reader uses outside knowledge, biases, and values while attempting to understand and potentially accept what is written. The reader evaluates the written word and makes the decision to ultimately accept the written word as truth, and of value, or perhaps not valid or valuable at all. A critical reader may also understand that one single text, research article, or journal submission is but one portrayal of the facts—one author’s perspective and interpretation of a subject. It is a unique creation of a unique author. Reading with a critical focus may serve as a catalyst to challenge the source, pursue multiple resources, and investigate a subject or topic more thoroughly. A concrete example may clarify this line of thinking. Unless you are one of the rare perianesthesia nurses who can breeze through examinations without study, anxiety, and stress, you likely perused numerous sources of clinical information to prepare for the certification examination. I remember my agitation and frustration as I worked religiously on my review questions, and I found that for so many multiple choice questions, I could argue a few answers as possible ‘‘correct’’ choices. I made a nuisance of myself to nurse colleagues, and to anesthesia providers, as I literally followed them around with my books and my justification. I just knew there must have been a few misprints in the ‘‘acceptable’’ answers, and I spent far too much time on that issue when study time was valuable! But I was not satisfied that the written,
Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing, Vol 28, No 6 (December), 2013: pp 421-422
421
422
MAUREEN V. IACONO
published word was infallible. My skepticism proved to be valuable, although perhaps annoying! I proudly passed the certification examination in 1990. As nurses begin to understand that it is prudent to practice with the validation of evidence and results of research and that we must grow in our knowledge to promote best practices, we realize that we must read, listen, and learn about the scholarly work of perianesthesia nurse colleagues. Nursing evidence must be collected, critically appraised, validated, and applied in real clinical situations. To practice nursing based on evidence, nursing publications and didactic presentations can foster an increased understanding of the reality of its application in the perianesthesia setting. The key to understanding ‘‘the rest of the story’’ is to ask questions, exhibit curiosity, and decide
if we know of a better way to say something or finesse an idea or opinion. We must listen actively, read critically, question data, and conclusions, and drill down to understand the how, why, and what of nursing topics. We must not be lulled into complacency with the mistaken belief that an established, or even a published, author knows better or must be correct.
The next time you read a journal article, review or revise a workplace policy, or refer to the standards of nursing, make an effort to read critically and analytically. Ask questions and consider your experiential knowledge and perspectives. Make a decision based on fact and reasoning, inquiry, and validation, to use the information you have read to support your nursing practice, to change practice, or to investigate more deeply to find the rest of the story.
Reference 1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2009.
