The National Order of Nurses sanctioned these 12 nurses for having delivered “percutaneous hydrotomy” care. Penalties range from reprimand to suspension for three months.
Twelve nurses were sanctioned by their National Order for having delivered “percutaneous hydrotomy” care, a scientifically unvalidated practice, according to a decision released on Monday.
The twelve caregivers received sanctions ranging from reprimand to a firm suspension for three months, according to the decision of the national disciplinary chamber of the order of nurses, made public by him.
Nurses put patients at ‘undue risk’
According to its promoters, percutaneous hydrotomy aims to relieve the pain of people suffering from recurrent pain (osteoarthritis, low back pain, migraines, etc.).
It consists of performing subcutaneous injections of physiological serum enriched with several elements with large dilutions.
It is promoted by an International Association of Percutaneous Hydrotomy, which provides paid training and the products used.
According to the decision, the sanctioned nurses put the patient at “an unjustified risk” by using this treatment technique which has not been the subject of any recognized scientific validation.
In general, when nurses are confronted with new care practices, it is up to them “to exercise a spirit of discernment” and a “duty of caution”, even if the care is requested by a doctor. , underlines the disciplinary chamber.
In addition, the caregivers concerned benefited from a prohibited “advertising promotion”, since their name and contact details appeared on the association’s website.
Not “scientifically sound”
The decision also asks the council of the national order of nurses to issue “a warning to all nurses” about the practice, inviting all nurses “to cease without delay any participation in these acts in any form whatsoever”.
In an opinion issued in October 2021, several years after the start of the contested practices, the Academy of Medicine considered that percutaneous hydrotomy was neither “scientifically founded” nor “clinically evaluated”.
“Its potential adverse effects are not documented”, and “its use should not be recognized as a valid care practice”, according to this opinion.
