Frank thankyou for your reply,
I have no wish to criticise an approach unduly (and hope that i'm not) but
simply see problems with some peoples understanding/application of the
approach( That i have experienced the same concerns with accredited PT's
concerns me even more!). There are by all accounts useful aspects in the
assessment, and I would hope that I have tried to identify them and apply
them within my own work.....
My concerns lie firstly with such an obviously mechanical approach. In
view of recent advances in understanding pain processes/chronic
pain,/influence of other factors, any approach (whether guru led as in
this case or not) that relies so heavily on mechanics would be of concern
for that matter. I appreciate that the approach attempts to (soften)be
more inclusive of other ideas...but somehow it always sounds to me like
everything else gets tagged on the end when the purist aproach doesn't
quite work?
Issues regarding Physio preferences, might I think revolve more around
considerable marketing brilliance (one of the first courses I knew about,
where you had to take parts in an order, and if you left it too long you
had to start again)! No problem with that, except it always feels that
conversion to the way is really the only way? Remember the average
practitioner qualifies, realises they weren't taught the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, and then somebody offers them a nice recipe- and
even better it has some evidence behind it....maybe this illustrates a
lack of decent research fullstop, as opposed to anything more?
I'm certainly not advocating applying hot packs, massage and some SWD OR
ignoring a McKenzie approach,but I do think it is dangerous for a junior
physio to concentrate so fully on one aspect of our practise , so early in
his/her career.
Sam Bowden
|