sorry ive never understood this. if the vast majority never use OMT, then what was the reason of learning it in the first place? i always thought this was the defining element that separated osteopaths and allopaths..the "extra" as many people call it. isnt there some stat out there that states only about 1% of DOs actually use OMT in their practice.
I beg your pardon, but I am not really the right person to ask that question. I am going to be a first-year student this Fall, so I don't have enough experience and knowledge to answer your question intelligently. I'm thinking that someone more advanced than me can address it better than me with something other than hearsay and conjecture.
Suffice it to say that OMT is but one element in the historical tradition of osteopathic medicine (
1); it is alone insufficient, I think, to define the tradition (
1), although some could, and would, argue this particular point quite vigorously. I mentioned some of the other foundational elements to osteopathic medicine in a prior post. OMT was a major element a long time ago, but it's role has since diminished through the years due to the evolution of medicine in general. There is but one commonly accepted practice of Western medicine and one common standard of care; it is the familiar evidence-based one that we appreciate.
To this day, while osteopathic medicine has evolved to the point where, in practice, it is nearly indistinguishable from it's allopathic counterpart, it still teaches it's historical foundations, where relevant, to it's students. OMT can be an effective treatment modality when used in conjunction with other medical interventions, such as when used to treat musculoskeletal issues, used to aid in surgical recovery, and used in pain management, as some basic examples. Some suggest that it is an overemphasized component in osteopathic medicine today (
1). I don't know enough to comment on that. I do think it is underutilized; the reasons why are arguable and unclear, at least to me. As with any manual intervention, proficiency and mastery comes with frequent use; disuse often results in loss in proficiency. This loss in proficiency can result in further disuse and so forth. Eventually, I think many DO's forget that it can be a useful modality where it is indicated. That is one of the issues here. Other DO's may have never really liked the idea of OMT in the first place and so never use it for that reason. There may be other elements which impact the use of OMT as a treatment modality, such as an osteopathic physician's chosen field of specialty, participation in allopathic residencies, and perhaps also due to the protracted nature of our current health care system, which has gradually diminished the importance of the therapeutic relationship between doctor and patient in favor of business principles and practices. I think this last point is all the more reason to reinforce the principles of sound patient care.
Anyway, I think manual medicine is fast becoming a lost art. I think it is very basic medicine. I want to learn it and develop some level of mastery over it. I hope to use it in my practice. That's all I can say as of now.
I'm afraid I've taken this thread too far off-topic. I don't want this to turn into something it isn't, if it hasn't already.
