Occupational Therapy News OTnews July 2019 | Page 14

REPORT ANNUAL CONFERENCE
As the core is central to an apple, is research core to our practice?
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 of 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 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.
14 OTnews July 2019