Re: Moving target
Terry Supan
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: Moving target
Creator:
Terry Supan
Date:
12/15/2000
Text:
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
>
>
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
>
>
Citation
Terry Supan, “Re: Moving target,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 9, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/215519.
