Re: Moving target

Re: Moving target

Stan LaCount

12/15/2000

I can't see why you had to share your reply with the whole list. We've
heard all this before. I agree with all of it. Unfortunately, you haven't
really understood me and you assume too much. What you don't understand is
that I am in the process of jumping through all the little hoops and I'll
dot my I's like the best of you, but since the field is one of those gotta
be in the business to get into the business kind of things I'm going to get
started doing what I know and have been trained for right now. I haven't
had any luck prying experience out of the certified practitioners around
here when I offered to intern for nothing so I'll start making legs for free
to any clients who wants one around here until I do get more experience.
I'm not about to sign any non-compete clauses anytime soon. If you can't
join em, beat-em. If I can't do a good job for a client, I'll refer them
to one of you certified ABC/BOC practitioners. Please don't prattle on so
about the whys and wherefores for my sake, I understand the situation quite
well and want to see the whole O&P field attain true professional status.
Lets just not get too carried away trying to create more requirements for
the poor indentured servants trying to jump through the hoops you didn't
have to go through. I also think that time in grade is over rated
especially when little has been done to increase ones education in that
period of time. I also think the uneducated Grandfathered in brace and leg
guys should keep quiet about making new requirements for entry level
personnel when they are unwilling or unable to meet them. They certainly
shouldn't be sitting on the boards deciding things for the profession.

----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Supan < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [OANDP-L] Moving target


> I have tried to stay out of this, but as most of my friends know, when I
have an
> opinion I don't hesitate on making my point. Stan, there is no moving
target.
> There have been several articles written by myself and other that lay out
the
> history of O & P educational standards here in the States and around the
world.
>
> In 1968 the first recommendation for college level education was put
forward at
> the conculsion of a 13 day, international concensus conference on
prosthetics
> and orthotics. Twice in the 70's, American leaders in O & P, Orthopedics
and
> federal agencies concurred with that recommendation. Multipule
international
> conferences in the 80's lead to the 1990 WHO-ISPO Alexandria (Egypt)
Report
> which recommended that O & P professionals be educated at the same level
as
> other allied health personnel. I.E. the equivilant of a 4 year college
> education (with special courses in O & P) in the developed world.
>
> Remember, here in the States, there is only one organization that
establishes
> educational standards for O & P. That is CAAHEP (Commission on
Accreditation of
> Allied Health Education Programs) which NCOPE (National Commission of
Orthotic
> Prosthetic Education) is a part of along with a dozen or so other
professions.
> They have standards for undergraduate, post- graduate and NCOPE itself has
> standards for O&P Residencies.
>
> Our profession knows what the skills, knowledges, and abilities are needed
to be
> a compitent orthotist or prosthetist. One of the ABC's many function is
to
> test the minimal competency of the individual wanting to be a professional
> orthotist or prosthetist. Through the exam process, that testing looks
not only
> at their knowledge and their skill but also their ability to provide the
> special care that we, as allied health professionals, need to provide.
>
> I will never disagree that our necessary skills are best developed in a
clinical
> setting. That was the whole reason for the creation of O&P residencies.
But I
> also know that the fastest way to knowledge is education. That is why the
ABC
> uses the educational track that CAAHEP/NCOPE developed as the prerequisite
for
> sitting for the exam. It's the quickest way to aquire that competence
without
> putting individuals with physical disabilities at risk.
>
> Stan, yes the bar was raised between the late 60's and the early 90's as
the
> profession finally reached that baculoriate educational goal. Others
outside
> the profession filled that void we created because they did not agree with
our
> saw an
>
> Unsupervised, on the job training is just having some paying for you to
practice
> trial and error care until you finally get it right. Or until they give
up on
> you.
>
> Stan LaCount wrote:
>
> > Every day I get new e-mail concerning BOC and ABC licensure requirements
(RE
> > Federal legislation). I'm planning to be certified too someday but I'm
not
> > sure I can hit the moving target. It doesn't seem fair somehow that
those
> > practitioners who have ABC & BOC and have met each respective bodies
minimum
> > requirements continually seek to raise both the education and experience
> > bars. It looks to me like you guys want to increase your professional
> > standing on the backs of newcomers. While granfathering in uneducated
old
> > timers may have been an expedient thing to do, continuing to require
more
> > stringent experience & education levels for new applicants to O&P is
> > extreemly self serving.
> >
> > Why shouldn't all the existing CPO's, CP's, CO's be required to take the
new
> > certification tests and meet the new minimum requirements that they are
so
> > adamantly proposing for this field? It is all very well and good to
raise
> > standards but shouldn't they be met by all? At this point, I'm going to
> > practice O&P without certification until everyone (ABC, BOC, or
otherwise)
> > gets their act together and decides what minimum requirements shold be
met
> > by everyone! It is obvious why enrollments are down when one considers
the
> > unlevel and shifting playing field being designed by the Old Guard for
new
> > the new players.
> >
> > Stan LaCount PRE
> >
> >