Marketing Question About "Osteopathic Assessment"

[fozzy40]

I have a friend who is a physiatrist (MD) who completed a sports and spine fellowship that did incorporate "some" osteopathic/manual medicine training. According to the office website, it lists that he/she is trained in "osteopathic assessment."

I know for a fact that we are talking about a 4-5 day course taught by osteopathic physicians. My question is, can he/she state that they are trained to perform an "osteopathic assessment?" There is no claim to be an osteopathic physician or board certification by an osteopathic professional body.

I guess I philosophically have a problem with it because I know that it takes more than a weekend course to develop this skill set. Granted there are some "naturals" that can pick up the art of palpation but even then I would not claim to have any proficiency after a year.

I know I am being a little nit picky but I think it's a little misleading. At best, I would claim training in "manual medicine" which is a very general term but probably most appropriate in this particular case.

I'm sure someone is going to say that there is no difference in the terms. However, I know there is and to those who disagree please tell me how they are similar.

Just curious to hear everyone's thoughts...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[drusso]

I have a friend who is a physiatrist (MD) who completed a sports and spine fellowship that did incorporate "some" osteopathic/manual medicine training. According to the office website, it lists that he/she is trained in "osteopathic assessment."

I know for a fact that we are talking about a 4-5 day course taught by osteopathic physicians. My question is, can he/she state that they are trained to perform an "osteopathic assessment?" There is no claim to be an osteopathic physician or board certification by an osteopathic professional body.

I guess I philosophically have a problem with it because I know that it takes more than a weekend course to develop this skill set. Granted there are some "naturals" that can pick up the art of palpation but even then I would not claim to have any proficiency after a year.

I know I am being a little nit picky but I think it's a little misleading. At best, I would claim training in "manual medicine" which is a very general term but probably most appropriate in this particular case.

I'm sure someone is going to say that there is no difference in the terms. However, I know there is and to those who disagree please tell me how they are similar.

Just curious to hear everyone's thoughts...

Are you kidding?

PT's are running around these days saying that they're trained in "osteopathic manipulation." I would think that a MD with a weekend course would have more credibility to claim an "osteopathic" mantle or brand than a physical therapist. From a physiological perspective, no one can claim a legitimate difference between any brand of manual therapy...it's all pretty much the same...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11318/

 

[fozzy40]

After I posted this I started thinking about the fact that there are plenty of specialists that "overadvertise" themselves.

Thank you for the reference too. I know that physiologically they are the same but there are differences ideologically/philosophically. I added that "please tell me how they are similar" bit to deter people who have no background in manual medicine techniques from giving me an uninformed..."there the same"

Thanks again for the resource!

 

[Prof Moriarty]

Someone who is interested in it, goes out of their way to study it, practices it regularly, and even advertises it may in fact be more qualified to do so than some DO's who have had a longer, more formalized course but who have never practiced it, have no interest, no skills, and no desire to develop them.

A basic osteopathic evaluation is a useful tool and it is not that difficult to learn. Of course, to develop true expertise takes more time and energy. But I think that a physician that knows the basics may reasonably advertise to that effect.

Interestingly, PT's are trying to add to their scope in a variety of procedural ways: OMT, acupuncture (re-named "dry needling"), cupping (a folk medicine technique, re-named "myofascial decompression"), et al.

Upledger will teach anyone, right? Including massage therapists. At least the guy you mentioned is a physician.

 

[jesspt]

Are you kidding?

PT's are running around these days saying that they're trained in "osteopathic manipulation." I would think that a MD with a weekend course would have more credibility to claim an "osteopathic" mantle or brand than a physical therapist. From a physiological perspective, no one can claim a legitimate difference between any brand of manual therapy...it's all pretty much the same...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11318/

So, if that PT has completed the Osteopathic Manual Medicine course series at Michigan State, they shouldn't state that they are trained in osteopathic manipulation?

Not sure why an MD with a weekend course would have more credibility than a PT regarding the application of manual therapy. I don't know how much manual therapy is covered in the typical medical school curriculum, but all PT schools need to include it in their coursework in order to be accredited.

Interestingly, PT's are trying to add to their scope in a variety of procedural ways: OMT, acupuncture (re-named "dry needling"), cupping (a folk medicine technique, re-named "myofascial decompression"), et al.

OMT and cupping would have been included in most PTs state practice acts for quite some time, so I don't think that we're necessarily trying to increase our scope of practice in these examples. Also, I can't say that I know of a single PT that would claim to be using cupping, but that may be becuase I try not to associate with PTs who practice any of that myofascial drivel.

Dry needling (or intramuscular manual therapy as the Illinois Dept. of Professional Regulation now calls it) has recently been found to be within the scope of practice for PTs in some states, hence the increased use of that technique by some PTs.

 

[clarence]

I will say that most graduates of a DO program will have a minimum of around 350 hours of hands-on OMT training in addition to OMT based course work. Thats without having spent any extra time practicing outside of the curriculum. There is a big difference between that degree of training and a weekend course. Its like EMG - many physiatrists don't use it. But I would not say that a FP that does a weekend course in EMG would be comparable to a physiatrist, whether they regularly do EMG's or not. Thoughts...?

 

[PMR 4 MSK]

I will say that most graduates of a DO program will have a minimum of around 350 hours of hands-on OMT training in addition to OMT based course work. Thats without having spent any extra time practicing outside of the curriculum. There is a big difference between that degree of training and a weekend course. Its like EMG - many physiatrists don't use it. But I would not say that a FP that does a weekend course in EMG would be comparable to a physiatrist, whether they regularly do EMG's or not. Thoughts...?

A weekend course, a week-long course, or even a months-long course is of no value until you've applied to many patients in the real-world setting. That means seeing and evaluating patients and doing it under supervision many times. That goes for OMT and EMGs.

Same goes for pain procedures. I would never trust an FP who took a weekend or week-long source to learn to do ESI, FJI, etc.

 

[Prof Moriarty]

There certainly are some PT's or manual therapists who have better manual therapy skills than some DO's. It makes sense for the simpler and safer techniques of evaluation and treatment to be included within their supervised scope, provided they get the proper training. Some therapists are truly willing to learn this stuff, while some DO's are not, no matter how many hours they have built into their curriculum.

But the evaluation or the therapy or the problem that it's for are only one piece of the puzzle. In my experience, non-physicians can get very good at their one piece, but they generally lack the training to make in-depth considerations of the whole picture. They often know "what" to do, and can be quite good at it. But I have found that they often don't know the "why" or the "what else", both of which have major implications in evaluation and treatment. I do not expect them to know these things at the level of a physician (even some physicians have trouble making proper referrals). It is not part of their training. The problem arises with therapists or providers who "don't know what they don't know" and want to increase their scope through legislation rather than education.

My educational experience has been greatly enriched by working on a team with expert non-physicians, and I have encountered people who know more about their area than I ever will. I appreciate when passionate therapists or providers develop and hone their expertise to that level. It benefits the patient and the rehab team. But I question expansion of scope that is not predicated upon expansion of proper training.