Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council launch

[yecbvfff]

.....sorry....training courses that fall below nationally set and recognised standards.

 

[Me (:]

If a grandparenting route exists it must mean that the CNHC recognise that you don’t have to have one of their approved qualifications to be a competent therapist.

To accept grandparenting means accepting that there are good therapists out there who have as you put it “below standard” qualifications but that through the courses they have done, ongoing CPD, experience etc etc can be as good as those who have ticked the right training boxes.

i.e. Ofqual/QCA, the sector skills agencies and awarding bodies, NOS blah blah training is ONE way to be good enough for CNHC registration, but other non accredited courses and additional or ongoing CPD and experience are another.


i.e. there is more than one way to reach the required standard to be a good therapist.


Rustic

 

[Tyclitoimmisy]

If the price the industry has to pay for the time therapists wanting regulation give to the CNHC (or any other regulator) is that concerned therapists must keep their mouths shut and be grateful, or roll over and have their training publicly insulted in order to "move this industry on" then I would suggest the people giving their time reconsider the time they give.

I'm sorry you've felt the need to play the "we give our time" card in what on the whole has been an interesting debate.

Best wishes
Rustic

 

[PopyPlunlipsy]

I believe grandparenting exists for those who have done training prior to NOS etc, and it doesnt guarantee registration. Yes, there is more than one way to reach a required standard, but IMO, if you want to be a massage therapist (for example), then you should do a course that meets the nationally set standards which have been discussed, and which have been in place for many years.

I really do hope that the government legislate against these substandard courses, as they do the professional therapist no favours. We have therapists near me that have done them, and we hear no end of complaints about them.....but then they charge £10 & £15 for a full body massage, so that should tell you something.

 

[rsesourzicninregz]

Hi

Thank goodness for grandparenting. I don't see a problem in a therapist putting together a portfolio of work and experience to be evaluated. Many another professions do. If you want to join the CNHC and jump through the hoops, this is a personal choice.

I agree with FM's example of massage therapy. It's time massage therapy standards does rise. Not just provide quality treatments for the public, but to give the massage therapist a better chance of making a proper living out of it. The more I practice therapeutic massage & bodywork the more I realise this is an amazing modality, that bridges the gap between healing and physiotherapy, art and science. (This is a generalised statement, no splitting hairs please.)

As for situations like someone who has a natural born talent for therapies, well I say even more reason to train as that would be a waste of talent! Even the great classical composers had to study and had mentors guiding them. (This is a generalised statement, no splitting hairs please.)

Best Wishes

RP

 

[ShinigamiSophie]

Rustic, who said anything about wanting concerned therapists to keep their mouths shut? I certainly didnt, in fact, quite the opposite, im always telling therapists to get involved if they are concerned. Which is exactly why I got involved. I want to know whats going on in my profession, that will not only affect my business, but also the businesses of all the people I have trained over the years.

The professional courtesy we mentioned, you have made your views on CNHC known....I do some work for CNHC, therefore I feel insulted. I make my views known about SOME distance learning courses, and you feel insulted. You arent going to change your views, and neither am I. Thats life, people have differences of opinions. I dont need to play any 'woe is me' cards, about the work I do, but you did mention professional courtesy, and as I said, it works both ways.

Not going off topic (too much), DL courses have their uses, but there are lots of people on here that have the same view as I do. If its a hands on therapy you want to learn, then IMO you cant learn it from some A4 sheets of paper. I teach distance learning courses, I develop distance learning courses, so I am not anti-DL.

 

[leslie b]

That is – to me - saying shut up or be seen as criticising us therapists who choose to give up our time to fight for what WE want, (whether you want it or not).

Getting involved means talking about it – which is what I thought this thread was for, rather than a back patting exercise for the CNHC or regulation generally.



You have not been talking about SOME distance learning courses, you have been talking about training/qualifications (generally) that in your opinion fall short of the national minimum standards, and stated publicly that such training is substandard i.e.(and IMO ignoring grandparenting opportunities, additional experience, CPD or whatever else), therapists who don’t tick the right boxes have sub standard training.

I don’t see how that equates to anyone who has an opinion different to yours about the CNHC (or regulation generally) is insulting you personally just because you do some work for the CNHC.

But I understand (sorry for being slow .....) that I’m encouraged to get involved, provided I don't question what has been done so far and am grateful for the effort people are putting in to get what THEY want, that I accept that whatever I have done to further my skills, my training is considered substandard, and provided I don’t insult you by debating regulation or the CNHC on a public forum.

Perhaps you had better list what I am allowed to say. Who knows, I might even take notice of it. I may even sleepwalk into regulation.

Rustic

 

[hwmrbqjf]

Hello Rustic,
please could I clarify what I think you are saying ?

Are you saying that the regulators are wrong to set in place minimum standards?
Are you saying that you believe that distance learning courses are an appropriate delivery method for hands on therapies?

Reading between the lines I think you have issues with the process of regulation, which I believe is a fundamental necessity for the end user of our services.

In perspective I have studied for a total of approx 60 weeks for my PT diploma, of which about 75 days was in "college", I also completed over 200 hours of what are deemed case studies along with a nutritional profile and plan which took approx 75 hours. This was after 15 years in fitness instructing, management and a military pti
I therefore get extremely hacked off when I see some companies offering an equivalent qualification over 13 modules with no face to face study or direction and no exam or assessment, " you will be awarded your diploma for your course work". They can ( but seldom do) charge the same rate as I when their skills are questionable and in some cases I have witnessed dangerous.

heres why I think its is wrong to use distance learning for any therapy where you cause either a physiological, physical or psychological effect on your client.
how the heck can you learn the reactions of a client to either too much force, too little force, too harder exercise, how can you observe and feedback, how can you learn how to adapt or modify your plan/treatment to take into account what reactions and contraindication look like

I believe quite strongly that DL has its place and that is for theoretical knowledge, end of..............

I think you have been unfair to belittle the work that others do for the overall good of your profession, this thread has been informative at the least and just because you exercise your democratic right to vote with your feet and not join CNHC. it doesnt mean that other HP users like myself agree with you or sympathise with your plight.

I am fully supportive of any process ( which may or may not have a few flaws that need addressing as part of its normal growth and constitution) that protects the public from charlatans and below standard therapists that continue to give a "tarred with the same brush" bad name to us properly and appropriately trained therapists and trainers who have invested thousands of pounds and hours in our training.

sincerely yours, striving for knowledge and experience (20 years plus thus far)
J X

 

[§tâŗliģhŧ \♥]

arguing for arguments sake really. Nuff said from me.

 

[Cnfusedashell]

Eventhough I didn't want to get too involved in this debate, I feel that I have to say something. Rustic, why are you taken it so personally. All that ST and others including myself, are saying that on Hp is that times are changing and that higher levels of skills are going to be required through out the CAM sector. In turn this will help CAM to have a higher professional status. This means greater opportunately to spread CAM skills into more mainstream society and be less considered as a form of quackery. Yet your replies come across as highly defensive. Is this a lack of self-asteem? Is it fear of qualifications taken may be substandard? Do you have some educational issues?

I left school when I was 15. Can't spell sometimes to save my life. If it wasn't for computer technology, I wouldn't bother studying whatsoever. Did not have any qualifications until I was in my early 20s. Later found myself in university and discovered I was dyslexic after being tested by an educational psychologist.

I don't feel in any way superior or better than other practitioners, but I'm happy to jump though the hoops, receiving high quality training and so forth. Now I have developed a good practice, live off my earnings and don't have to be claiming benefits any more.

When I give any advice on Hp or questioning various courses and attitudes, it isn't to blow my trumpet and structing around like my Chinese astrological sign, the Rooster (lots of lol). It a wish to help others to succeed in there practices, and help client improve the quality of life, hopefully reduce pain & discomfort (not always possible of course) by offering an alternative in healthcare, if appropriate of course. I do not in my professional opinion believe that many of these DL courses have professional validity. I have done a couple, one wasn't too bad, and the other was so awful that I stopped doing it. It was an insult to intelligence, and it didn't matter want I wrote down, still got 70%. This is a con!!!

Whether the CNHC is a force for good or bad in the CAM industry, we shall see. No register is ever going to protect the public 100%, but improving common standards and maintaining some kind of quality control is a benefit for all.

If the new goverment is slashing budgets and doesn't care about regulating new professions, the CNHC may disappear up its own backside, and so this debate may just be hot air.

Best Wishes

RP

 

[PLAYBOY]

Why should any therapists have to accept “a few flaws that need addressing as part of its normal growth and constitution” if an institution held up as a mirror has already got the problem and it can be dealt with in advance, i.e. before some poor CAM therapist (perhaps one in a different profession to you?) is the sacrificial canary in the CNHC coalmine?

As it’s legal to give a lot of therapies without having any training whatsoever, the chances of the government legislating against any courses is pretty well zero, particularly when the courses at the local colleges have often dropped in number substantially.

In a country where you don’t have to be qualified at all in a particular therapy, I just think credit should be given to therapists who are prepared to train in the best way they can, or at a price they can afford, particularly when it’s being added to skills they already have, (for example qualified in a related subject, or nurses coming into the professions etc). Therapists shouldn’t all be tarred with the same “substandard training” brush. The passionate and committed therapist will fill in the gaps in their training, (and indeed will go on to exceed the minimum standards by a long way as lifelong learners) and, in my experience, are usually very willing to pass clients to other therapists if the case is beyond their expertise at the particular moment in time. Any of those who don’t make the grade or pretend they can do something they can’t will soon be weeded out by a very savvy market. I’m not saying the system is perfect, but neither is the alternative being offered.

In the private sector, if someone wants to employ or work alongside a good therapist and you are good, qualifications are reviewed with your CV and experience as a whole, whether you come recommended etc. Therapists who have an axe to grind about other people’s training can close a business down, so in general therapists meeting therapists in the private sector do not go round sniffing each other about how they trained or what boxes they’ve ticked or what organisation they belong to. Any that do so unpleasantly lose work.


I don’t have a problem with voluntary regulation, I have a problem with regulation that (however unintentionally) initiates professional discourtesy. I say it again, it is unfair to play the “therapists give up their time” card. I have voluntarily spent my time debating, after having done a lot of research about regulation because of the commercial impact it has on my business. I think it is incredible to imply that those of us who have a different opinion must be in some way sub standardly trained or have some educational issues, or that they personally have some plight that needs sympathy.

As a general observation, IMO some people are rude about other forum members training choices, not by what they say, but they way they say it. What you might mean to say is that times are changing and that a higher level of skills are going to be required but I could go back through these forums with lots of examples of rooster comments from some who have professionally identified themselves (and the therapies/PAs/their own business). IMO it can reflect their own profession badly to the public and to potential students and clients. (Sometimes it’s when they offer their own training so whatever their motives, their tactlessness just looks like sour grapes). Others may do it anonymously, but their profession is usually identified with the often unpleasant remarks, which can be read for months to come.

Therapists can give advice about training and standards in a respectful manner, or choose to sneer. From what I’ve seen, it won’t be long before more CNHC registrations will encourage even more to sneer. Whatever the NHS etc want from the industry, private commercial businesses will not leave themselves open to getting caught up in the squabbles between rival factions of a particular profession.

The current regulatory model is the HPC. One regulated sector in particular are already publicly describing the unregulated part of the market as “bottom feeders.” They are also publicly rude about the grandparented in their own profession, (great advert to the public). That progressed to routinely making unsubstantiated complaints to the HPC and Trading Standards, often when they had insufficient knowledge of the law. Worse, they have reported multi disciplined complementary therapy clinics as well as individual therapists. I found it out accidentally when I searched online to find a therapist in my area. I myself was targeted when I spoke out about it. (I feel vulnerable again even posting this). I now have treatment myself from their unregulated – and professionally civil - competition. However small my own protest was about what is going on, I will not refer clients to HPC registrants from that particular “profession.” I am not alone.

If, instead of debating, anyone wants to continue to publicly imply that they think that if anyone has different views it is because they don’t have good enough qualifications, or are educationally deficient, or have low self esteem, or that they have a plight that needs sympathy, carry on. That’s probably how it started with the disgruntled HPC registrants. The backlash is starting there – CAM and the CNHC or other regulator ignores the “flaws” to the detriment of the professions.


Rustic

 

[gaiasloft]

On the subject of qualifications, remember that being qualified to NOS standards does not mean that you are a good therapist. IMHO the only way you can truly say that each 'Therapist has been Regulated' is by requiring them to attend for an assessment. You may find that the 'grand parenting' therapist comes out on top. Obviously this assessment may not be viable so IMO the CNHC cannot truly list 'only the best' or 'these guys are safe' or even 'fit to practise'

Don't get me wrong I believe that Self regulation is a good thing, in fact I sit on a self regulating body myself. But IMO I do believe that the CNHC is basically flawed. I would much rather see each therapy individually self regulated through their own groups and maintain their own register and Ensure that all their Practitioners are fit to practise their chosen therapy/therapies.

 

[Jacky C]

Hi Rustic,
posting on here has never harmed mine or my colleagues business, far from it! We are told many times in emails and telephone calls that the readers enjoy reading our postings, which while can sometimes be quite frank, are always honest.

I do think that you are very happy to critisise, but don't like any aimed back, but that is what these forums are, so if you can't handle people disagreeing with you, don't post.

it's also clear that some of your comments IMO are said to try to discredit those posters who do make themselves known, but as I said earlier, it doesn't work, EVERYONE is entitled to express their opinions, and telling people that their businesses will be effected by posting, just shows very poor form from you.

 

[Woot woot. (:]

*Gorseflower in Mod's clothing*

Just a short note to all to kindly ask all that personal digs and insults be reeled back in, and the subject return to regulation of therapies, not speculation on individual therapists' opinions and the perception of them in the public realm.


....and actually, as a polite aside, HealthyPages is a fantastic tool for helpful discussion, not for volleying criticisms as mentioned above.

On behalf of the moderating team,
GF

 

[Harshal]

just read an update from CNHCCNHC and Professor David Colquhoun
At a special meeting of Board representatives, held on 10 August 2010, to which Professor Colquhoun was invited, it was mutually agreed that Professor Colquhoun’s membership of the CNHC Conduct and Competence Committee (CCC) should be terminated.
Professor Colquhoun has been part of the CCC since its inception in December 2008 and sincere appreciation was expressed for his contribution to the work of the Committee.
Whilst recognising and agreeing that Professor Colquhoun raises valuable issues for debate, the Board is conscious that the make-up of CNHC needs to be focussed and targeted to achieve the best outcomes for the organisation.

August 2010

 

[Evja Teacher]

Hi BGFL,

Of the 2,800ish members of the CNHC how many are sports therapists?

Obviously with too much time on my hands I did a search on the CNHC website of 15 major towns and cities and found that at this time (excluding people who are going through the registration process) there are 31 members registered under Sports and Remedial Therapies. Some quick searches found that the majority of them are specialist Sports Massage Therapists.

That is a very poor showing for the Sports Therapists who practice General Sports Therapies. How does the SRTC hope to increase these numbers other than students from the Active Health Group and London School of Sports Massage courses?

I know that VTCT now accredits a sports therapy diploma in line with the NOS's that have been drawn up by the SRTC but has any schools or colleges expressed an interest in running it?

On a seperate issue does the AHG still advise its students to seek registration with the Society of Sports Therapists? On its website it still states that it accepts the AHG diploma for registration.

 

[lbrkqaxs]

Hi Aspire,
AHG has always had a policy of letting students/graduates make up their own minds as to which PA they join. AHG grads can join any of the GCMT and SRTC organisations, plus the SST, and its down to them to research which one best suits their needs.

Re VTCT sports therapy, I dont know any schools/colleges yet that are running it, however I do know that the VTCT have/are contacting all their training providers to tell them that they must run the new sports massage courses strictly to guidelines, and this is thanks to pressure from GCMT, which is very good news, so hopefully the short weekend courses will now go.

As far as sports therapy numbers at CNHC are concerned, I agree, it is very poor. I stand by what I have said previously, I think the less people that register for voluntary regulation, the less chance we have of ever getting HPC, although I will be posting some addional info on the sports therapies forum.

I dont think its up to SRTC to push therapists to CNHC, its up to the PA's, I think there are more than 31 STs registered as I know more than that myself, but I also know that there are lots of STs who registered for massage originally, and havent added the other modality.

 

[Vince C]

Hi ST,

Thanks for your response. I know there will be more than 31 registered, I just did a search on the major cities and towns as a rough guide. I agree that if vouluntary regs is to be seen as a credible alternative at this time, then much more people need to sign up to the CNHC. Although I just cant see how that is going to be achieved to rival the numbers of SST members.

Regards

AspireST

 

[joyascanada]

The combined membership of the SRTC organisations runs into many thousands, so its a shame that not all of them have registered.

 

[zpvypyqe]

Thats interesting ST. I'm sure your not including all the complementary therapists of the FHT and CtHA in those figures. Also how many of the Sports Therapists involved with those organisations would meet the standards that have been set for CHNC registration?