ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the tensions offering critical and occasionally polemic analysis in relation to two developing areas of evidence-based policy: the introduction of intentional rounding and hospital smoking bans. It proceeds with a brief discussion of the many levels of policy, how it differs from guidance and the claim that it is based on evidence. However, there are also a number of differences between guideline and policy, but the discussion here focuses on two: justification and force. The widespread implementation of intentional rounding is an interesting and illustrative case study, which demonstrates the way that spurious evidential claims are used to defend what are easily capable of being seen as politically motivated nursing interventions. The grant application notes that: Instead, realist evaluation methodology will be used, with the aim of investigating trends in patient outcomes rather than seeking to demonstrate cause and effect. The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) requires nurses to practise autonomously based on the best available evidence.
