Joe:
Thanks for your great comments.
The DPT is not, the be all and end all, for our profession. It is one small
part of the further development of our profession. Many people throw up all
that is wrong, or needs to be improved, in our profession and then say: "The
DPT will not solve those problems therefore why pursue it?" They are right
in that the DPT alone will not solve all of our problems. Does that mean we
should not pursue the DPT on its own merits? No IMHO.
The DPT and the tDPT will ASSIST us in addressing the myriad of issues we,
and for that matter any medical profession, faces. The tDPT will bring many
in our profession up to speed on practice in 2001 and beyond. There is no
other single activity I can think of that can get a majority of the
profession to go back to the classroom and get refreshed, recharged and
practicing at an appropriate level. If for no other reason the DPT is worth
doing to elevate the practice of our colleagues.
Strengthening the clinical/academic partnership in clinical education should
help us to "answer the question that matters" in research. It should give
researchers access to patients and clinicians access to the academic
research resources necessary for clinical research. For all their problems
and short comings MDs have been very successful in virtually every area. We
should take what is best of the physician model and apply it to PT.
Douglas M. White, PT, OCS
-----Original Message-----
From: - for physiotherapists in education and practice
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Beatus, Joseph
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PHYSIO] Raising the bar
Hi. I agree with most of the comments, on both sides. WEll, its
possible!
Personally, I do not think research in most PT schools, unless
affiliated with research institutions and access to PATIENTS in large
numbers, will (a) make a difference in practice, (b) add prestige to the
profession, (c)make us autonomous, unless we can persuade the insurance
brokers that WE KNOW (see K. Malterud, Lancet 2001;358:397-4000)our
domain and finally, for now, (d) influence our patient interaction.
Reasoning (a) research , data and statistics do not make a field of
human interaction (see Lancet article-a must for all the who-is-who in
research, -the patient avoiders
(b)in my experience, as both a faculty member, AND a
clinician, the title may open the door, and awe the patient for the
first 1 min, but if the "shake and bake" mentality persists (I include
most voodoo in this category, for if the patient had to self-pay, would
they?) they see through it. further, specialization is her to stay, and
few PTs are able to transcend the treatment of a preemie and mobilize
the SI point, measure a W/C for a competitive, cord injured, and design
a work place
(c)in many regions and institutions we are under the
auspices of physiatrists, a bane. Few are conscientious and MANAGE
patient care, or perform necessary EMG. Most have no idea of our
work-but are able to raise the cost of medical care. A DPT may make them
superfluous-I hope. A DPT may cull a few of incoming students who do not
belong in a compassionate field of work.
(D)terminal degrees do not improve hand skill,
communication, awareness, depth of analyses, experience and (fill the
blank). The research algorism IS NOT what PT researchers think. SOME of
the paths are similar, but not all. differentiation between a MCA,
Cerebellar or brainstem stroke is fine diagnosis, but how to handle or
intervene (new PT jargon in the States) is another ball game, or play.
The latter has much more in common with patient care then ANOVAS, or
Factor analysis.
Joe
