title: Feasibility of energy medicine in a community teaching hospital: an exploratory case series.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Energy medicine (EM) derives from the theory that a subtle biologic energy can be influenced for therapeutic effect. EM practitioners may be trained within a specific tradition or work solo. Few studies have investigated the feasibility of solo-practitioner EM in hospitals.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  This study investigated the feasibility of EM as provided by a solo practitioner in inpatient and emergent settings.
  
  
  METHODS
  Feasibility study, including a prospective case series.
  
  
  METHODS
  Inpatient units and emergency department.
  
  
  METHODS
  To investigate the feasibility of EM, acceptability, demand, implementation, and practicality were assessed. Short-term clinical changes were documented by treating physicians.
  
  
  METHODS
  Patients, employees, and family members were enrolled in the study only if study physicians expected no or slow improvement in specific symptoms. Those with secondary gains or who could not communicate perception of symptom change were excluded.
  
  
  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.
authors.affiliation: 1NYU Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY.
authors.forename: Francois
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Dufresne
authors.affiliation: 1NYU Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY.
authors.forename: Bonnie
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Simmons
authors.affiliation: 1NYU Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY.
authors.forename: Panagiotis J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Vlachostergios
authors.affiliation: 2St. George's University School of Medicine, Grenada, West Indies.
authors.forename: Zachary
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Fleischner
authors.affiliation: 1NYU Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY.
authors.forename: Ramsey
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Joudeh
authors.affiliation: 3YinOva Center, New York, NY.
authors.forename: Jill
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Blakeway
authors.affiliation: 1NYU Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY.
authors.forename: Kell
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Julliard
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001294:Attitude to Health; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005260:Female; D006764:Hospitals, Community; D006784:Hospitals, Teaching; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D026443:Spiritual Therapies