Joined: May 9, 2004
From: West Palm Beach
Lol! Paris "pulls from a variety of schools"
not to rain on your parade, because I do want to congratulate you on your accomplishment, and feel that by going through that you are far more advanced than the average therapist, but don't for a minute think paris brings in many schools of thoughts.
On a tangent, I'd like to chime in on the "safe to manipulate" discussion. I second the statement that there is NO EVIDENCE that novice PT's are unsafe to manipulate without having to "work up to it". Not to put words in their mouth, but the current leaders in manip for treatment (evidence based) - Childs, Cleland, Flynn, etc - most likely feel it is for the novice and the "master" clinician alike.
Does it take practice to improve patient confort and your proficency? You bet. But one doesn't need 5 "warm up" classes to reach the level of being "safe" or effective with manipulation.
Note: I don't perform Cx manip and therefore my statemtents pertain to thoracic and lumbar manip only.
I am both certified in the McKenzie system and NAIOMT system. They both have pros and cons. McKenzie pros: I think their basis for exercise, progression and critical thinking is simple and very scientific. McKenzie cons: Manual therapy techniques are a little difficult to perform (especially for the c/spine) and a little too generalized. NAIOMT pros: extremely eclectic system that involved thoughts, theories and such from many different points of view. Their attention to safety is very good as is their evaluation forms. cons: a little too much reliability on palpation-based segmental movement. Evidence on that is a little sketchy.