Hi John,
That is why PT's should be registered with a licensing organization.
I recently sat an several work groups on "continuing competencies" for PT's
in my own province of practice.
Your organization "CSP", should be in the business of monitoring "minimum
competency". Which means entry level PT competency. Conduct that not
endangers the public.
In other words, someone who is "over 45" and presumably has qualified many
moons ago, should still be able to perform to a level deemed "safe" by your
licensing body. Should be able to assess, treat, plan etc. at the level of
a new grad. I personally find it shaky if the licensing body would say that
due to your "experience" you should be able to perform over and above the
practice of an entry level PT. Of course that could certainly be our
expectations, but are more niceties in my book. One rule for all is my motto.
For instance, when I trained (yes I am pushing 45) LASER was not on the
menu yet. Of course nowadays it is in the PT training and it is considered
an entry level skill to safely know how to apply LASER. It would be
"incompetence" for me not to have acquired the skills to use LASER.
It is for the CSP to decide with a body of peers what is currently
considered minimum entry level competence. Contact the CSP, I am sure they
either have done this or are working on it. I would actually be quite
interested to know where they are at. Perhaps you can report back to us :).
You mentioned Maitland Mobilisation. Personally I would be careful to
include specific techniques of some kind and not another in minimum
requirements. For instance I do not use Maitland, but use a lot of "Muscle
Energy" principles, Neural Tension and "Dos Winkel". I can assure you, I do
not feel inadequate in my mobilization techniques. You also have to
consider that certain techniques are fads.
Of course in your example, where someone replies "Maitland who?" there most
likely were no alternative techniques this person was using, and this
person can be called imcompetent.
Then there is the question of specialization. So someone qualified 20 years
ago, has been working in cardiac rehab for 15 years. Much has changed in
the area of orthopaedics. Should this person keep up with "minimum
requirements" in orthopedics just because this person is a PT, or just in
their area of specialization?
I personally would say, if Cardiac rehab is the only area the PT works in
do not force him to keep upgrading in other areas, until he decides to
start working in those areas. Complicated business!
Here in Alberta, Canada, we are most likely going to a continuing ed
portfolio. Everyone keeps a portfolio of cont ed courses and competencies
etc. What would be nice if Universities would offer, "five year updates" as
courses. "everything that is in the new grads package now that was not
there five years ago".
Start lobbying John.
Maarten
Canada
|