Hi Isaac,
Interest in the profession cannot be confused with competency.
You quoted a passage from my reply... where I advocate to exclude specific
methods in competency profiles. If you would have read on you would have
found my further comment:
__________
"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 incompetent."
__________
So you work in Lungphysio. You have heard of Maitland, Mulligan, McKenzie
and McConnel. Did you take all these courses? I would guess you took
courses in your own field first? But if you would have carried on in
private practice... you bet you would have taken (and expected to take)
courses of that nature.
I again give a word of caution to include specifics in competencies. We are
too diverse, have too many tools, are too global to do that. And this can
even get to scary proportions.
I attended one of David Butler's courses on "neural mobilization" several
years ago. There was a fellow colleague who made an interesting statement.
Here in Canada we have a system to become a "manipulative therapist" which
ends in a bunch of exams, one of them called "Part A" etc. That is one way
of doing mobilizations, Maitland would be another. He actually made the
statement that in his opinion a therapist before allowed to work in
orthopedics (e.g. a private clinic) would first have to pass the "Part A"
exam. Wow!
We'd all have grey hair before we would see patients and has nothing to do
with "minimum competency" which is all we need to focus on in licensing terms.
I could see a competency terms be stated like this:
"Is able to assess and competently treat conditions of the spine using a
manual mobilization techniques."
I would hate to see something like this:
"Is able to assess and competently treat conditions of the spine using
Maitland mobilization technique."
Man would I be ticked if I just passed Part A & B, but my licensing body
took my license because I did not take Maitland.
Maarten
At 08:23 AM 3/11/02 +0100, you wrote:
>"You mentioned Maitland Mobilisation. Personally I would be careful to
>include specific techniques of some kind and not another in minimum
>requirements."
>
>Sorry, but I think that if a PT has not heard of Maitland, Mulligan,
>McKenzie or McConnel in this year and age, it's quite hopeless. I work with
>lungphysio and have worked 5 weeks (!) in a private practise since I
>graduated 4 years ago and even I have heard of it. It has everything to do
>with being interested in one's own profession.
>
>Isaac
>Norway
|