The clinical practices of Charlie Goldsmith are currently under investigation in a study being conducted jointly by Monash University Professor Paul Komesaroff and New York University Professor Natalie Jeremijenko. Mr Goldsmith’s intention is to expose his work to multiple scientific studies, which will ultimately include a double blind controlled trial that directly tests outcomes. The study presently underway is being undertaken at NYU Lutheran Hospital in New York and employs a qualitative methodology to help understand the experiences of patients who encounter Mr Goldsmith’s practices. The results from this study will be used, as appropriate, to assist with the development of further qualitative and quantitative studies.Read More
Results: EM was found to have acceptability and demand, and implementation was smooth because study procedures dovetailed with conventional clinical practice. Practicality was acceptable within the study but was low upon further application of EM because of cost of program administration. Twenty-four of 32 patients requested relief from pain. Of 50 reports of pain, 5 (10%) showed no improvement; 4 (8%), slight improvement; 3 (6%), moderate improvement; and 38 (76%), marked improvement. Twenty-one patients had issues other than pain. Of 29 non–pain-related problems, 3 (10%) showed no, 2 (7%) showed slight, 1 (4%) showed moderate, and 23 (79%) showed marked improvement. Changes during EM sessions were usually immediate.
Conclusions: This study successfully implemented EM provided by a solo practitioner in inpatient and emergent hospital settings and found that acceptability and demand justified its presence. Most patients experienced marked, immediate improvement of symptoms associated with their chief complaint. Substantial practicality issues must be addressed to implement EM clinically in a hospital, however.
To read full article click this link http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/acm.2014.0157Read More