Sports Massage Progression

[dad7734]

I know a few plumbers who will fit a gas fire for you

Do you want their numbers?

"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try." Homer Simpson

 

[ryclrk]

Morning all,

Seems like it may be a busy day on the HP website forum;

i see the differences in scope of practice between a sports therapist and a sports massage prac. as

a massage therapist uses manual based treatments to help affect soft tissue, using massage, stretching and other hands on modalities.

a sports therapist uses this and other rehabilitative techniques, relating to the promotion of healing and increased ROM (before anyone says it, I know that massage also achieves this), electro-therapies and diagnostic tools to assess various problems/issues. Psychology and recognising its effect on a patients well being.

Sports massage should be a hands on treatment base and training. Im with anyone who suggests that distance learning courses are not viable in terms of preparation of a therapist.

I'm starting a new topic, may have been covered but maybe interesting.

 

[Kora]

So if a sports massage therapist has already covered
Corrective exercise prescription
PNF (MET RI /PIR)
Psychological response to injury

If they then do a CPD workshop to learn electrical modalities are they then a sports therapist?

I really cant see why there appears such great sway in the 'difference' between a sports therapist and a sports massage therapist

(maybe the other way around (ST> SMT) may cause a problem since many sports therapists do not cover 'massage' and that will take more than a CPD course to re-address)

 

[Nori Johns]

that is true (ps can I nick your Homer Simpson quote? Love it! Lol)

 

[mary s]

I like this one best

"And how is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?" Homer Simpson

 

[Alonzoatmojer]

Homer Simpson's definition of a spoon. 'Something you dig food with'.

 

[tdewdumpiidiuzeio]

Totally agree. Where a core curricular is studied i.e. SMRT and further quality CPD is attended it can put your average SRMT in line with a ST very quickly and probaly with better soft tissue and massage skills.
When it comes to a SM course such as the ISRM syllabus which is sufficient to be included on the CNHC Sports and Remedial Therapy register, what additional core curricular/NOS needs to be completed to then be recognised as an ST? Having a quick look nothing a couple of weekend courses wouldn't cover.

 

[Chevy El Sancho]

this is where i completely disagree.

How can a CPD course compare with a course including practical assesments, assignments and a much longer and in depth understanding of a subject.

A lot of cpd courses are simply awareness based. It is a tutor delivering it, you can or can't take notes. There is no formal assessment, the criteria they decide on ,ay not cover certain intricacies of work.

I', not saying CPD isn't good, but you cant say three top up weekends equate to an extra year of study.

Remember, study isnt just about te aspect you are learning about, it is the surrounding knowledge you gain also.

CPD is good-but it can not replace real vetted educational standards.

Those people who claim they are a sports therapists after cpd courses+a massage qualification are kidding the industry.

 

[systemofadownfan]

Whilst researching for my progression route last year, I looked at many SM courses, unfortunately they dont all meet the ISRM syllabus and therefore it is not a balanced view to state the above (IMO)

What about a SMP who does a 4 day course as recenltly identified by sportstherapy, the qualification at graduation is exectly the same as the ISRM, (ie level 4 ITEC//VTCT) if you disregard the BTEC.
The amount of extra study in the 20 days must give the students extra knowledge


There NEEDS to be a standard that is auited, working myself for an awarding organisiation in another industry, I see first hand how a lack of resources and appropriately trained staff actually contribute to the inneffective verification of qualification.

MY opinion is therefore;

IF there is a level 4 or level 5 SM qualification that is standardised nationally, then additional CPD workshops COULD give the additional skillset to bridge the gap between the SMP and ST qualification.
IF CORRECTLY DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CORE CURRICULA of the lead body.

I have recently contacted GCMT for clarification of a number of points raised on this forum by some experienced therapists, I await a response, but it has only been six weeks

Jx

 

[Andrew Paulus]

see the point below for why this is completely illogical and bad for sports therapy

 

[nicemadhura]

Agree with most points however note (despite being excellent courses) the "levels" quoted by MC / BTEC were "self awarded and have little to do with the real world ie: outside ISRM and definately not the QCF



A LEVEL 5 IS NOT BETTER THAN A LEVEL 4

If anyone can tell me different, please let me know how
But before they do please note
IT IS NOT more knowledge or skills since this is considered (by Skills for Health and QCF levelling criteria ) as "just" a Level 4 who has done more CPD

re sports therapy courses
"How can a CPD course compare with a course including practical assesments, assignments"

Are you saying a sports massage therapist has not already undertaken a course which included practical assessments and assignments?

"and a much longer and in depth understanding of a subject"

I wouldn't be so sure

and to paraphrase TT

Those people who claim they are a sports massage therapists after cpd in massage and a sports therapy course are kidding the industry

 

[Lev]

Sports the FACTS are really easy. If you go to the CNHC website there is a big graphic indicator of their fantastic success. If you then cross-check this against their register it is very easy to see the numbers in each therapy. They are tiny. Happy to accept that I may be ten or twenty out either way but the FACT is the same, in an industry of some 100,000 - 120,000 practitioners to claim to be a regulator with +/- 4,000 is a joke.

FACT - After making a claim that 10,000 practitioners would be recruited in the first year and to be entering the third year of operation with +/- 40% is failure - FACT

What is this 'fake regulator' bit. There are only three processes I am aware of (and I await correction if there are more) GRCCT which lists about 11,000 practitioners and has achieved all it's stated objectives year on year. The BCMA's regulator which is tiny but again does not seem to be making any outlandish claims and CNHC which as the FACTS prove has achieved almost none of its original aims and is simply failing to secure the levels of support it needs to become a viable regulatory body.

Do let's see your FACTS about these £10m libel issues......

 

[Miss M (",)]

What i want to be able to do for my membership is point them in the direction of a regulator which has high standards in terms of acceptance criteria, is professional in its dealings with registrants, gives some credibility and professional advantage and has a very sharp set of teeth when dealing with miscreants. I'm not particularly interested in quantity but I am interested in the quality of the register. I also want a board that clearly and demonstrably does not have conflicts of interest.

I have struggled with the GRCCT offering--a truly awful website with the last board minutes dated June 2008 despite talk of transparency, and not a single named officer (apart from on the June 2008 minutes). I have no sense of the standards, whether this is a one man band etc. I do recall that there was a falling out (isn't there always) over the potential structure of any potential regulator which led to the creation of GRCCT, but i wasn't involved so this is hearsay. I have also heard that GRCCT have done some good background and promotional work with professions----not mine---(but then they have that in common with CNHC)

I don't have any axe to grind and I'm not interested in point scoring---it doesn't convince me at all-so make your case.

Regards. Paul. SMA Vice Chairman

 

[Katie C]

Is that the same GRCCT who have 'registrants' listed on there that havent even applied to register?? Yes that has happened so where have THEY got the therapists details from?? How do they verify registrants details?? (oh sorry they dont!!) Why do GRCCT still list professional associations on their website, when these professional associations have requested that they remove them as they dont want anything to do with them??? Who are the officers of GRCCT? Who are the board of GRCCT?? Who are the advisors of GRCCT?? Where does the registration fees paid to GRCCT go?????? Funny that, but you cant find any of those details out!!

Before you disappear again, why dont you answer these questions?

The libel issue happened 2 years ago, but you would know that, which is why this fake regulator wasnt allowed onto the BBC, after CNHC were on there. Its funny too, that GRCCT claim to be a regulator, yet I dont know of any lead body that it has worked with, I dont know any PA that it has worked with, and can find therapists on its register that havent registered, so how on earth can they have been verified as competent. It beggars belief that you still go on about them actually.

 

[Reergederrask]

by the way, if the libel issue wasnt true, then I wouldnt make that claim on here, otherwise I could be sued.....for libel.

 

[my life as erin (:]

just looked for GRCCT at companies house and they dont exist, unless they are called something else.

11,000 registrants, wow, thats over £300k income per year! Hmmmm??

 

[Willie J]

Well I just saw one document from the GRCCT stating 50000 registrants http://www.grcct.org/pdf.docs/251010%20GRCCT-NCAT%20Release.pdf

Just as a random check I counted how many members on the GRCCT register in the Manchester area (as an example) and there was 9. On the CNHC there is 37 in the Manc area. OK not very scentific but I find it hard to believe using random postcode searches on the GRCCT register that they have 50000 on their books. Say, sake of argument, there was 50 postcode areas, that would be 1000 members per area!!!

RP

 

[bneiuuhhiizicgehh]

I just realised I have been fooled by GRCCT wording. They say, "The Complementary therapies regulated by the GRCCT are practised by in excess of 50,000 practitioners in the UK". So I was mistaken by this sentence, it made me think that they have 50000 on their register, but it actually means there is over 50000 therapists which practice therapies covered by the GRCCT. Mmmm, double talk!

So if there is 11000 members and say 50 postcode areas that would be 220 in each area code!

RP

 

[DISANTI]

Just done a check and registrants in my area, include 2 out of 8 who do not list any therapies............

Also says the "regulator" GRCCT works with Associations and lists STO, they certainly do not work with STO, in fact STO has asked for its details to be removed and advised its members not to have any contact with GRCCT.

GRCCT state; " Works with the profession to agree and oversee minimum standards." I have not seen them at any meetings I have attended.....

I welcome evidence of how they oversee mimimum standards.

 

[lostnda50s]

That i,s assuming they are members of a PA, if not add £100 per registrant.. you do the maths

They could possibly employ someone to act as a saboteur to frequent forums