My observations from at least the past 5 years:
A lot of massage therapists try to fix muscular problems (without the training)
A lot of sports massage therapists try to treat sports injuries (without the training)
A lot of personal trainers try to treat sports injuries and give their clients a ‘quick rub down’ (without the training)
A lot of remedial massage therapists try to be sports therapists (without the training)
A lot of physiotherapists try to be sports therapists (without the training)
A lot of people claim to be sports therapists (without the training)
Which makes me wonder; 1) why aren’t people happy to work within their remit? 2) Why don’t people just train to be sports therapists?
Hi sportstherapy,
I'm not a sports therapist, or any type of massage therapist, so I hope you don't mind me butting in here:). But, my guess would be that:
1) why aren’t people happy to work within their remit?
Everyone enjoys being flowing and creative, which means constantly pushing the boundaries.
2) Why don’t people just train to be sports therapists?
Because they haven't experience sufficient (if any) negative repercussions from stepping outside their remit. Negative repercussions which would leave them with no option but to properly train to be a sports therapist, or stay within their remit.
🙂
Hi sportstherapy,
I'm not a sports therapist, or any type of massage therapist, so I hope you don't mind me butting in here:). But, my guess would be that:
1) why aren’t people happy to work within their remit?
Everyone enjoys being flowing and creative, which means constantly pushing the boundaries.
2) Why don’t people just train to be sports therapists?
Because they haven't experience sufficient (if any) negative repercussions from stepping outside their remit. Negative repercussions which would leave them with no option but to properly train to be a sports therapist, or stay within their remit.
🙂
Unfortunately the legal action taken against therapists (both regulated and unregulated) working outside their remit is on the increase.
My opinion is lots of therapists are afraid to refer, which leads them to attempting to treat things they aren't trained to deal with.
When you deal with the things people go to see sports therapists for, there isn't much scope for being flowing and creative, which is my point exactly. Too many people getting out of their depth, which costs their clients money and healing time.
Perhaps it isn't that they are not happy to work within their remit. Perhaps they just don't like saying "no" to a client when asked to deal with a condition. Not defending, just saying ...
Perhaps it isn't that they are not happy to work within their remit. Perhaps they just don't like saying "no" to a client when asked to deal with a condition. Not defending, just saying ...
Which is the same as being afraid to refer. There is much more strength in being able to refer, than to not say no.
and just to be clear, this is in the sports therapies forum, and I am talking specifically about things that sports therapists are trained to deal with.
My observations from at least the past 5 years:
A lot of massage therapists try to fix muscular problems (without the training)
A lot of sports massage therapists try to treat sports injuries (without the training)
A lot of personal trainers try to treat sports injuries and give their clients a ‘quick rub down’ (without the training)
A lot of remedial massage therapists try to be sports therapists (without the training)
A lot of physiotherapists try to be sports therapists (without the training)
A lot of people claim to be sports therapists (without the training)
Which makes me wonder; 1) why aren’t people happy to work within their remit? 2) Why don’t people just train to be sports therapists?
Understanding and working to the limits of your experience and training are vital for any professional.
Perhaps it isn't that they are not happy to work within their remit. Perhaps they just don't like saying "no" to a client when asked to deal with a condition. Not defending, just saying ...
This horrifies me. As a pharmacist there are times when the law gives me no option but to say no to a patient - even if I felt competent to sort their problem out.
As a reiki practitioner and hypnotherapist I was also taught the importance of working within the limits of my competence and recognising when I should not treat a client,
Surely that is professional ethics 101 - or have I missed something?
Tashanie has replied in general terms, but I was particularly interested by two of Richard’s comments:
A lot of sports massage therapists try to treat sports injuries (without the training)
A lot of remedial massage therapists try to be sports therapists (without the training)
I may be reading more into these than Richard intended, but I did wonder whether these were an implicit criticism of Mel Cash. When I studied sport and remedial massage at LSSM (in 1999/2000) the syllabus included assessment of soft tissue injuries and assessment of joint injuries. I particularly remember a session on assessment of knee injuries where the tutor (not Mel) went through a great deal of interesting and useful information at too fast a pace and without giving sufficiently detailed written handouts to help students retain what he was saying.
I suspect that many LSSM/ISRM therapists who trained under Mel will feel that their training has been sufficient to enable them to assess basic soft tissue injuries and some basic joint injuries, even though other sports massage tutors (and sports therapy tutors) would argue that this is outside the scope of a sports massage therapist. (The differences between the LSSM syllabus and the SPS syllabus were the cause of a significant amount of friction in the early years of the SMA, which was documented on this forum, and which led to the formation of the ISRM.) I suspect that the ISRM’s focus on assessment of injuries may be why CNHC has been persuaded to accept some ISRM graduates onto its sports therapy register, even though their training has not included subjects such as hydrotherapy and electrotherapy, which I would have thought were an essential part of the training of a sports therapist.
I would also have thought that there is scope for a sports therapy training provider to offer a ‘bridging course’ to LSSM/ISRM therapists, enabling them to learn skills such as hydrotherapy and electrotherapy, and receive more detailed training in remedial exercise programmes, without having to repeat all the remedial massage that they have already been taught?
Alan
Tashanie has replied in general terms, but I was particularly interested by two of Richard’s comments:
I may be reading more into these than Richard intended, but I did wonder whether these were an implicit criticism of Mel Cash. [COLOR="Blue"]No, unlike him, I don't criticise his courses, unless of course it is to students that he has criticised my course to, and yes it always gets back to me :rolleyes:. When I studied sport and remedial massage at LSSM (in 1999/2000) the syllabus included assessment of soft tissue injuries and assessment of joint injuries. I particularly remember a session on assessment of knee injuries where the tutor (not Mel) went through a great deal of interesting and useful information at too fast a pace and without giving sufficiently detailed written handouts to help students retain what he was saying.
I suspect that many LSSM/ISRM therapists who trained under Mel will feel that their training has been sufficient to enable them to assess basic soft tissue injuries and some basic joint injuries, even though other sports massage tutors (and sports therapy tutors) would argue that this is outside the scope of a sports massage therapist. (The differences between the LSSM syllabus and the SPS syllabus were the cause of a significant amount of friction in the early years of the SMA, which was documented on this forum, and which led to the formation of the ISRM.) I suspect that the ISRM’s focus on assessment of injuries may be why CNHC has been persuaded to accept some ISRM graduates onto its sports therapy register, even though their training has not included subjects such as hydrotherapy and electrotherapy, which I would have thought were an essential part of the training of a sports therapist. [COLOR="blue"]I believe ISRM members can join the sports therapy register if they have the additional training, as can many other therapists but without it, they shouldn't be on the register, however with the state of CNHC, nothing surprises me. :rolleyes:I would also have thought that there is scope for a sports therapy training provider to offer a ‘bridging course’ to LSSM/ISRM therapists, enabling them to learn skills such as hydrotherapy and electrotherapy, and receive more detailed training in remedial exercise programmes, without having to repeat all the remedial massage that they have already been taught? [COLOR="blue"]Each year I train many ISRM members, most of whom are LSSM grads, and without fail, each one tells me that they have benefited by learning the more advanced soft tissue treatment techniques, subjective assessments, strapping/taping etc, as it has meant that they can confidently go out and treat soft tissue injuries better than before. Next year in London all of the students booked onto my bridging programme are ISRM members. This is not to say that they were no good before, because they come on with great skills, in fact, we are pretty much limiting our bridging programmes to ISRM members, because they are so well trained.
Alan
A well respected colleague said, when her organisation was getting slated by its sports massage members for not being able to join the sports therapy register "these people want the status of being a sports therapists, but choose the easy route of sports massage, as they don't want to put in the hard work that training as a sports therapist involves". That is a generalisation, but there are so many people doing the most basic of training and then claiming to be able to fix all.
When you can do sports massage training in 1 day and remedial massage training in 1 day (yes these courses still exist :banghead:) and then these people are calling themselves sports therapists, it is no wonder that the industry is rife with quacks and charlatans.
It is about 25 years since I did my very first therapy treatment, and I still refer for things that are out of my remit, or that I don't understand, and I still undertake a huge amount of training and research to keep me up-to-date. To know your limitations, and be able to refer is a strength not a weakness, but to treat when you don't understand is unethical.
So to go back to your original point, yes, you are reading something that isn't there, I am not saying anything about one particular course, or organisation, this is a general observation I have made, and as I said at the end of most of the statements 'without the training'.
When I studied sport and remedial massage at LSSM (in 1999/2000) the syllabus included assessment of soft tissue injuries and assessment of joint injuries. I particularly remember a session on assessment of knee injuries where the tutor (not Mel) went through a great deal of interesting and useful information at too fast a pace and without giving sufficiently detailed written handouts to help students retain what he was saying.
I suspect that this is still the case, as all of the people that I train that have done the LSSM course have said they don't cover a good subjective physical assessment enough to be confident.
I have been running a week of subjective physical assessment workshops this week, that are primarily attended by LSSM grads, and I would agree.
Don't know about you guys but I'm very very tired of all this nonsense and losing patience rapidly! There always seems to be a question mark looming over something. Its an absolute joke and a completely farcical situation.
The main problem with the sports massage/therapy/soft tissue industry, as the old saying goes 'Too many chiefs' who basically can't agree on anything! It just goes around and around in circles. Highly annoying. Rant over.:mad: