Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge

Comment

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 1, 2009 at 3:12pm

I believe that the MTBOK group should define massage as either a health related field or not. If health related then MTs who live in states that do not explicitly license the practice massage and have alternative authorizations to practice such as Health Freedom acts must comply with such acts.
I find that hear in California it is a disgrace that extremely few MTs use the legally required disclosures that will still be required even for MTs who have the new state certifications.
The body should take a stand and either state that laws such as the Health freedom act to dot apply for massage therapy or that is does apply and MTs should comply.

P.S. I could not post this to the MTBOK site. It was not working.

Comment by Chip Hines on October 1, 2009 at 3:11pm

Agreed, and thats why I started my blog (on this same site) a while ago. Anyway, as I said, Im glad for the discussion, but will have difficulty keeping up with multiple areas as well as working down the comments we receive.
I am glad to have gotten the comments you submitted, and you will hear back.
Line number specific comments as Ive seen here are just what we need, so Im hoping they get added to our system. You might want to check out my blog, because some of the discussion here looks like it is based on some misconceptions we've been seeing, and hopefully we will get cleared up before the next draft. For example, our goal is to provide knowledge skills and abilities that an entry level therapist should know based on what is known now. Schools would then create their curricula based on this, and the specifics of each would be built as schools do it now. So, for example, we felt that an entry level massage therapist should be exposed to the fact that there are some major themes in our profession that are governed by other views/traditions of the human system. They dont necessarily need to know a lot about these systems such as those in Chinese medicine, but they should know they exist, and a few facts, to help with context, to be able to recognize it when they see it, and perhaps to decide if they want to pursue further training in that area.
Interestingly enough, in Orlando when we had discussions going about issues like this, and one person was saying that the list of KSAs was way too much for entry level, someone else from a school told the group that this is already what is being taught in good massage schools today.
Not everybody is going to agree or be happy no matter what we do, but we are listening, and we arent ignoring input. However, we have a lot of work, and we need people to give us comments directly if they want a chance for changes to be made.

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 1, 2009 at 2:39pm

Much of what you describe as KSAs actually are not points of knowledge but are standards of practice. While a code of ethics deals with what you must do or not do, practitioners need a separate set of standards of practice that are guidelines to increase the quality of service, keep you out of trouble and avoid ethical dilemmas. You should separate KSAs and SOPs because they need to be treated differently.

Example: 718, 720, 798, 803, 807, 902, 911, 1052, 1052 etc.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 1, 2009 at 2:26pm

So you want your own BOK and licensure or certification. I know Calif. is different. How are you licensed there? And what if others there don't want your BOK? Will there ever be any accepted uniformnity? It would take decades to create the type of regulation you are asking for. State Boards are trying to find "common ground" now and I think it is to protect the public, "needed or not to a certain degree" from non scientific intuitiveness. While you seem to have a handle on it, I worry about that 17 year old about to enter the field and his "lack of right-brained strength". Some guidelines need set. Let's work together to find our own common ground.

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 1, 2009 at 1:58pm

Mike I agree and think the each of their modalities including energy workers should develop their own BOK. The BOK does two things. It defines the term so that people understand what something is but to do so one must define the exact description. The second is that it ensure that the training is internally consistent.

So we can describe something we call “Swedish Massage Therapy” as long as it is understood that other forms of massage and bodywork are not defined by the BOK.

If one includes things like energy work the BOK only works if it completely defines the specific modality. So it is one thing to know the meridians and acupressure points but if you hare balancing yin/yang and the five elements you had better know what you are doing. If you believe that acupressure works then you must acknowledge that you can do harm as well as good. If a person has too much fire that pressing on point that increase his fire will not only not help but possibly do harm.

I do not do Swedish massage and as a consequence to not want to be included. Even though I have had Swedish training I don’t want to be expected to be competent in Swedish. I also want it recognized that I need a very different set of competencies. I want the profession and general public to understand that Swedish standards do not apply. I have had lots of training but my massage school training was not only a waste of time but I had to unlearn attitudes learned at massage school. The portions of the BOK that are in common with what I do we learned separately and in some cases in a very different way.

Excluding modalities by name does not work because it stifles innovation. I am a “muscle whisperer” and do not fall into the standard modalities. The other problem is that without separate BOKs the terms are not defined.

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 1, 2009 at 1:28pm

Chip, I have submitted some comments but I started this because I think that we also need open discussion. I am glad to see you here. Discussions can open up ideas that can be developed by the collective that one person cannot do themselves. It also allows use to introduce partially expresses ideas and work to develop ideal solutions.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 1, 2009 at 10:49am

Sorry so long to get back to the discussion. Living in the mountains has its disadvantages when the telephone company cuts a phone line. Ok, wow! Cliff. glad you joined the talks.

I agree with you Bert. The Assesment section is way beyond the scope placed before the majority of therapist inside the US to this point. I don't know if the BOK is trying to head the entire profession towards EB work or not.

Carl, I don't think there is any rules anywhere that say you must master any modality to practice it, just be licensed to do so. And with Line 328, I'm sure there will be releases signed and protocol. Rural male doctors have faced this dilemma for centuries. Some will and some won't.

So far as energy aspects, since I became a therapist, I have heard energy people complain about not being accepted. Now accepted and "potentially" regulated, I hear a new fervor. Perhaps enery workers need an Alliance for Workers of Energy (AWE). They could write a BOK for energy workers.

There's all sorts of options and the BOK is just one.

Comment by Chip Hines on October 1, 2009 at 8:04am

Im happy to see that there is active discussion going on regarding the MTBOK draft. The reason we are going through 2 full drafts before the final product is delivered is so that we have time to get input from you, our stakeholders. We have done what we can to help get input from the field - we grabbed the one opportunity to meet face to face at the AMTA conference since this was a way to see a lot of people at once. But the real way for us to get comments is via our input form, and when I see these comments, I know you are already focusing the way we need to. The comment input form is available here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=jF3W8X_2f4JQoWbhCmPfOSpg_3d_3d, and doesnt take long to fill out. Like the comments on this blog, we ask you to submit one form for each comment area, but you can submit as many as you like.
So far, only Mike and Carl have actually used our system to provide comments. WHile Id like to be able to find comments everywhere, it just isnt practical, so, if you want your comments to be reviewed by the task force, please submit them there.
My intent is to provide a response to all the comments we get there, and if its manageable, I will. With the frenzy of our draft release, the Stakeholder input session we have held and now our refocus on adding to the content while addressing comments, Im behind on responses, but it will be my focus to catch up as quickly as possible.
Discussion are great and can help crystalize your thoughts, but if you want them to get reviewed and included in the task force thinking, you have to submit them via our input form... Hopefully we can work to together in this way to get the best product out.

Comment by Bert Davich on October 1, 2009 at 6:46am

Here are some more good ones;
Assessment 768
• Process/methods of assessing and reassessing the status of the client/patient using 769
standard techniques and documentation strategies to determine appropriate modality 770
treatment
Great, but who is going to decide which modality is 'appropriate'. Not to mention that many modalities incorporate the same or similar techniques and all modalities evolve over time so who is going to keep up with that? A close look at some modalities of massage reveals that the biggest difference is often the approach rather than the technique. Structural integration for example makes extensive use of deep tissue & myofascial release, so which of these modalities is going to be considered 'appropriate'. Rolfing is an oral tradition so who is going to provide a complete documentation. What about the Rolfers in Olympic Village, are they qualified in 'Sports Massage'? While I'm sure they are qualified they may or may not have trained in the 'modality' that has taken the name 'Sports Massage" A technique or method of specific application could be deemed appropriate but not a modality. However, a technique could be appropriate for one client, but not appropriate for another client (for many reasons) with the same apparent condition. But if techniques or methods were deemed appropriate (or not) then is anything not 'approved' forbidden?.... Another pigeonhole to prevent innovation.

It seems like whoever decided what to include ended up including a lot of "Modality Protection" language and 'modality separation' recognition. Probably in response to the attendees and industry players who have a stake in making us go to them and pay them for the 'privilege' of practicing something that has been around for hundreds of years.

Application and Documentation 772
• Appropriate medical documentation for recording progress for use with therapeutic 773
modalities. 774
• Manufacturers, institutional, state, and federal standards for the operation and safe 775
application of therapeutic modalities. 776
• Indications, contraindications, and precautions applicable to the application of 777
therapeutic modalities.
What Institutions?
Does this mean that if a massage results in therapeutic benefit we must use medical documentation?
You might want to check out some state laws that would call precise measuring of the range of motion of a joint (such as in exact degrees) by a massage therapist to be practicing medicine. I suggest the authors read the article "Scope of Practice" by Christy Cael in the september issue of Massage & Bodywork magazine. It's available online if you dont subscribe.
MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION you say? We are NOT medical practitioners and those who want to be should apply to a medical school to start their PT or MD program.

Because a "well handled" 'National Meeting' was held and the relatively small number of attendees were able to voice their opinion does not vindicate the result.
This looks like a giant step backward.

Comment by Gerry Bunnell on October 1, 2009 at 5:12am

Greetings All,
I'm glad to be part of this group. I'm going to wade through the MTBOK draft and then offer some comments. Thanks for making that available Mike.

I do agree that many modalities have been grouped under the term massage that should not be there such as energy work, aspects of TCM and more. Knowledge of energy fields and/or the meridians can enhance the quality of a massage therapist, but I do not believe they are necessary to provide massage.

Standardizing a system can be like opening a pandora's box. How affective has standardizing our school systems here in America with the SOL tests been? Creativity has been lost in both teachers and students. It has been my experience that regulations (which the MTBOK will most likely be used for) limit a practice and rarely, if ever, enhance a practic.

"I see a bad moon arising"

Now that I have voiced my skepticism, I'll read the draft and hopefully be relieved.

Peace

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 48
• 49
• 50
• 51
• Next ›
• Page