In an impassioned debate that posed the motion ‘This house believes that research is not core to being an occupational therapy practitioner, and is therefore not part on an occupational therapist’s professional identity’, delegates were challenged to vote on whether they fundamentally believe that research is something that should be central to everything they do, or something that is best done by somebody else.
Chaired by David Brindle, Public Services Editor for The Guardian, at the start of the debate the mood of the audience was clearly against that statement by a huge majority.
Speaking for the motion, Dr Jenny Preston MBE, said that it all occupational therapists have a responsibility as research consumers to engage with research - but stressed that the debate was about the difference between engagement in research and with research.
Noting that practice should be shaped by the evidence base and available guidance, she said the quality, accessibility and relevance of the available research makes this difficult. With less than one per cent of the profession having research training at a robust level, she said research continues to be an ‘elite sport’, adding that research also ‘takes a long time to tell us what we already know’.
Also in support of the motion was Rob Molloy, a band five occupational therapist from the Hillingdon Child Development Centre. While admitting his initial apprehension at having to argue for the motion, he said that it became clear that the debate is not about the importance of research, rather about how core it is to practice.
He cited the lack of resources and increased pressures under austerity, and the fact that research does not always meet the needs of the demographic of most therapists’ patients, to accuse research of occupying an ‘ivory tower’.
‘If research is not easily applicable, how can it be core?’ he asked the audience. ‘We would be better putting that investment into practice.’
However, in strong support of the motion, Professor Avril Drummond argued that they had used ‘clever semantics’. She said that ‘we are not trying to turn everyone into researchers’, but that all occupational therapists need to facilitate and support research, and ‘so that you know what best practice is’ should be at the very least reading journals and following clinical practice guidelines.
She reminded us that delivering research findings clinically is required as part of HCPC professional registration and that ‘we have to be cited on the things that go wrong and the unintended consequences of what we are doing’.
In a hard hitting plea she told the audience to ‘get a grip’. ‘Do you want the message to get out there that you do not see research as core? Think about our credibility and standing with other professions.’
Standing alongside Avril was Natalie Jones from Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHSFT, who succinctly said ‘just as a core is central to an apple, research is core to our existence’.
She said that research enables the trial of new treatments and interventions that can transform and save lives. Sticking to the food theme she added: ‘When research is missing, it is like serving up a Sunday roast without the Yorkshire puddings.’
In support of Avril’s argument on professional responsibility she added that the fourth pillar of RCOT’s Career Development Framework is focused on research and reminded the audience that using research evidence in practice keeps therapists up to date and keeps patients informed of the choices. Crucially, she concluded all commissioning is determined by evidence.
After a lively debate on both sides of the argument, it was perhaps no surprise that the motion was resoundingly defeated, with 300 shows of hands against, just 20 for and 22 abstentions.