PRACTITIONER TRAINING - Indian Head Massage

Overview
This one-day intensive training course covers everything you need to know in order for you to safely and professionally conduct a therapy session in Indian Head Massage.
Course times: 10am - 5.30pm. Please arrive at least 15 minutes early.
Map and directions to premises can be provided if necessary.
There will be a short break in the morning and afternoon, and a break for lunch.
Please bring a packed lunch with you on the day.
Please let us know if you have any special requirements.
There will be the opportunity to experience and perform all the massage techniques
Support information and advice is available for those who wish to practice professionally
On-going advice available via e-mail after the completion of the course.

What does the practitioner training involve?
Welcome and brief introduction to the training course
Discussion/Instruction
Introduction to Indian Head Massage
How it works
Effects and Benefits
Massage Movements and Techniques
Massage Movements with Illustrations
Massage Techniques Explained
Structures of the Body
The Muscular System
Bloodflow
The Lymphatic System
Preparation for Therapy
Body Mechanics
Reactions to Indian Head Massage
Contraindications 
Adaptations
Aftercare Advice
Client Consultation Skills
Consultation Form
Case Study Examples
Brief written test	

The Federation of Holistic Therapists is the largest association in the UK, representing over 20,000 professional therapists. Founded in 1962 the FHT is a non-profit making organisation who, by setting industry standards, ensure best practice for Therapists and their clients. No other UK association has influenced the acceptance of Complementary Therapies in the UK more than the FHT. The FHT welcomes applications from therapists in the UK and overseas.
The Federation is made up of six councils:
IFHB	 - 	International Federation of Health & Beauty Therapists	
ICHT	 - 	International Council of Holistic Therapists 	
PACT	 - 	Professional Association of Clinical Therapists	
HFST	 - 	International Council of Health, Fitness & Sports Therapists 	
ATL	 - 	Association of Therapy Lecturers	
HBEF	 - 	Health & Beauty Employers Federation	
Each council has its own Vice-President elected annually by the Members. The Governing Council of the Federation are also elected annually by the Members. All office holders receive no remuneration from Membership funds.
FHT representatives sit on all relevant industry forums both in the UK and Europe and are fully involved in raising standards in all disciplines.
All Members of the FHT are strictly bound by a Code of Ethics that contains procedures for dismissal if a Member is found guilty of unprofessional or related misconduct. The FHT also provides its Members with a Code of Practice that many countries have adopted as the standard for the industry. 
Combined under one banner the FHT is the most powerful voice in its field. Through the central office structure we provide the services and have the power of a large organisation and also can focus on the individual demands and objectives of each association.
Complementary Therapies
Complementary therapies: Where to from here?
Jun 1 2000
AFP - 29(6) June 2000
Marc Cohen, MBBS (Hons), PhD, BMedSci (Hons), FAMAS, Dip Ac, is currently Director, Centre for Complementary Medicine, Institute of Public Health, Monash University and Vice President of the Australasian Integrative Medicine Association. 
Editorial
The results of the survey conducted in 1998 by Hall and Giles-Corti reveal that the majority of general practitioners surveyed are favourable toward complementary therapies and that GPs have a high level of interest in, and use of, particular therapies such as acupuncture, meditation, spinal manipulation and hypnosis. Of particular note is the finding that 37.6% of Perth GPs surveyed were actually practising a complementary therapy and 75% had formally referred their patients for such therapies. [1]
These findings support the suggestion made in relation to a similar Victorian study performed in 1997 that these therapies can be considered mainstream. [2] While these studies may not be directly comparable due to the different questions asked and different demographics, the Victorian study found that only 20% of GPs were actively practising complementary therapies. [2] 
What is the interest in these therapies?
Certainly the past decade has seen an increased interest in complementary therapies by the public with an estimated 60% of the population currently using some form or other. [3] This trend parallels the public demand for more autonomy and involvement in healthcare, as well as the desire to optimise health and prevent illness. Complementary therapies seem to fulfil these needs, as they tend to complement the body's own healing mechanisms, rely on patient initiative and often involve low risk, supportive therapies that complement the use of conventional medicine. The question must be asked however: why are doctors using these therapies? Is it because they see that these therapies provide significant benefits or are they merely influenced by patient demand? 
When reviewing the specific place of complementary therapies in general practice, it is worth considering that they are extremely heterogeneous and vary widely with respect to evidence of effectiveness, safety and clinical indications. The fact that these therapies are being used regularly in mainstream general practice however, does raise many issues. These include concerns that they may involve monetary exploitation and the provision of false hope, as well as the fear that they may delay the use of more effective therapies or put patients at risk without the promise of any scientifically demonstrable benefit. It is notable however, that these concerns are not specific to complementary therapies and apply equally to the practice of conventional medicine. It is also worth considering that the inclusion of any therapy needs to be based on evidence of its efficacy, as well as its safety, cost, availability and compliance, all considered in the context of the particular clinical situation. In many situations complementary therapies can be shown to be appropriate according to all of these criteria and thus these therapies do have a place in general practice. 
More questions than answers
The study by Hall and Giles-Corti highlights the need to address many important questions that remain unanswered such as:
•	Are certain therapies being under or over-utilised? 
•	Does their use require regulation? 
•	What are the particular indications for different therapies? 
•	Can clinical practice guidelines be developed? 
•	What level of training is required for doctors to practise them? 
•	On what basis should GPs be referring to non-medically qualified providers of complementary therapies? 
In their practice GPs are required to meet legislative and industry based standards of competency, ethical conduct and professionalism; it is uncertain however, to what standards GPs are adhering when they practise complementary therapies. It is also uncertain to what degree these standards apply to non-medical practitioners of complementary medicine and it appears that the integration of complementary therapies into general practice has been occurring without formal requirements or recognition. Since 1992, the Australasian Integrative Medicine Association (AIMA) has attempted to act as a professional and political peak body to assist in this integration. Yet, despite links between AIMA, the RACGP and the AMA, there are currently no requirements for doctors to have any specific training to practise a particular complementary therapy and postgraduate training in complementary therapies is not generally recognised as an important element of the RACGP Training Program.
Interest demands education
While there are no formal requirements or recognition for GPs practising complementary therapies, it appears that the desire for training in these therapies is high with almost half of the Perth GPs having undertaken postgraduate studies and over 60% desiring further training. This desire is also evident among medical undergraduates and I am aware of medical students at both Melbourne and Monash University petitioning their respective medical faculties to include more exposure to complementary therapies. Thus there appears to be an immediate imperative for medical schools to establish centres for complementary medicine to facilitate quality undergraduate and postgraduate training and for industry bodies to address the many practical issues that arise. 
By demonstrating that the majority of GPs are actively using or referring their patients for complementary therapies, the results of this study demand that their role can no longer be ignored or that they can be considered a fringe activity. Further research is now required to determine the basis for this use. The results of well designed trials need to be made accessible and education at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels is urgently needed to inform decisions regarding their role in general practice. <top> 
References
1.	Hall K, Corti B. Complementary therapies and the general practitioner: A survey of Perth GPs. Aust Fam Physician 2000; 602-606.	
2.	Pirotta M, Cohen M, Kotsirilos V, Farish S. Complementary therapies: Have they become accepted in general practice? Med J Aust 2000; 172:3:105-113.	
3.	Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian social trends. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service, 1998. <top> 	

Complementary and alternative therapies have become more widely used over the past two decades, but many practitioners in the United Kingdom are largely unregulated. One of the recommendations of last year's report on complementary and alternative medicine by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology was that "in order to protect the public, professions with more than one regulatory body make a concerted effort to bring their various bodies together and to develop a clear professional structure."1 That some health professions remain unregulated in a developed country seems extraordinary, and I shall review how this situation has arisen before considering the prospects for change. 
In the United Kingdom the common law right to choose one's own treatment for illness has been barely constrained by law.2 It is thus legal for practitioners to set themselves up in a wide variety of healthcare professions, as long as they do not claim to be registered medical practitioners and do not practise protected disciplines such as dentistry, midwifery, and veterinary medicine or supply medicines limited to prescription. By contrast, in most other European Union countries, as well as the United States, there are few healthcare activities that are allowed without state authorisation. Acupuncturists, herbalists, osteopaths, and naturopaths have been prosecuted for practising without medical qualifications, and the technical illegality of much complementary practice has meant that it has been pursued informally and disparately, with less opportunity for professional organisations to develop. The increasing demand for alternative health care across the developed world has, therefore, sometimes been met by practitioners outside the law and without recognisable training qualifications, professional standards, or insurance. 

In the United Kingdom, the lack of proscription has meant that there are few formal obligations to meet any particular standard, and individual practitioners have been able to pursue their own path, even set up their own training programme or professional body, without sanction. They do not have to submit to authority, building their base on their ability to please their markettheir patients. On the other hand, a benign legal climate has also allowed enlightened responses to increasing public demand. The natural instinct for self enhancement of professional status has led most practitioners to subscribe to organisations overtly raising standards. In 1997 and 2000 the Centre for Complementary Health Studies reported the results of surveys of about 140 professional bodies representing about 50 000 practitioners working in up to 30 complementary or alternative therapies. 3 4 Professional standards varied widely. In part to reflect this diversity, the House of Lords report classified complementary and alternative therapies into three groups (box) and related many of its recommendations to this classification. 
Two disciplines, osteopathy and chiropractic, have moved along the path of self regulation and now have acts of parliament that protect their titles and provide additional external and orthodox regulation of their activities. Both the General Osteopathic Council and the General Chiropractic Council have opened their statutory registers. Once the process of registering existing practitioners is complete, it will be a criminal offence to practice as an osteopath or chiropractor unless you are registered with the appropriate council. 
The House of Lords also identified acupuncture and herbal medicine as two therapies ready for moves towards statutory regulation under the Health Act 1999 and considered such moves might later be appropriate for non-medical homoeopaths. 

 	  Codes of professional conduct and public accountability	
Most complementary medicine organisations are run as conventional professional bodies; they publish formal codes of ethics and practice, and registers of their members are available to the public. Almost all subscribe to insurance schemes that provide professional indemnity and public liability cover for their members (the cost of cover is generally not high, reflecting the lack of litigation so far in this area). However, the opportunity for the public to pursue complaints against practitioners, and the provision of formal disciplinary codes, sanctions, and procedures and published complaint procedures was notably patchy, even among well established organisations. Given the moves to increase professional accountability in the medical profession, complementary and alternative medicine organisations will need to increase public scrutiny of their affairs, regardless of whether they get statutory regulation. 

 	  Educational standards	
Little external pressure has been put on practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine to reach any particular educational standard. Those professional organisations that have attempted to raise standards have been self motivated. The House of Lords report, however, recommended that regulatory bodies set objectives of training and define core competencies. Such objectives will clearly depend on the extent to which a profession claims that its members see patients independently of the family doctor. The Centre for Complementary Health Studies found that most practitioners of complementary or alternative medicine were likely to do so. 3 4 On the other hand, much anecdotal evidence, supported by at least one systematic study,5 has suggested that most patients consult complementary practitioners concurrently with conventional medical doctors. 
Practitioners of many therapiesfor example, those classified as complementary therapies in the boxare unlikely to tackle critical diagnostic issues or face the prospect of serious interaction with medical treatment. Nevertheless, other therapists may see patients who choose not to consult a doctor, and some practitioners may even encourage such independence. This uncertainty needs to be clarified: if complementary and alternative medical professions claim therapeutic autonomy then they are vulnerable to the charge that only a full medical education can equip them to work independently of doctors.6 
It could also be argued that all practitioners of complementary or alternative medicine should show that they are aware of potentially dangerous situations and know the contraindications for their practice, possible adverse effects, and mechanisms of referral to medical treatment.7 As complementary medicine grows the public may become more careful of its claims. The current position whereby organisations can happily operate at almost any level they want may not be tenable. Organisations should develop realistic strategies to justify how they would handle patients who have not already been assessed by a doctor. Such progress is most likely through more rigorous educational curriculumsfor example, imbuing the new generation of practitioners with the necessary culture of inquiry. This will lead to better articulation of limits to practice (and efficacy) and encourage fruitful debate with other health professionals. 
Progress has been made. Leading groups of complementary and alternative practitioners have established degree courses at, or validated by, universities (this is particularly notable among therapies in group 1). Other professional groups are considering the precedent set by the British Acupuncture Accreditation Board. The board, which has an independent chair and a majority of non-acupuncturists, was established by leading acupuncture professional organisations and colleges as a forum to assure the public that subscribing colleges are meeting self imposed criteria for educational achievement and to formally engage the public in the overall debate.8 

 	  Role of organisations representing other health practitioners	
The position of organisations which represent doctors, nurses, midwives, physiotherapists, chiropodists, and other registered health professionals who practise complementary therapies is bound to be different from that of organisations principally concerned with representing complementary specialists. There may, for example, be a view that what is being practised is a "technique" rather than a wider encompassing "therapy," with the corresponding assumption that training standards need not be particularly rigorous. However, the House of Lords report took a firm view on the standards that such bodies need to apply: "We recommend that if CAM [complementary and alternative medicine] is to be practised by any conventional healthcare practitioners, they [patients] should be treated to standards comparable to those set out for that particular therapy by the appropriate (single) CAM regulatory body." 

 	  Prospects for professional integration	
The surveys by the Centre for Complementary Health Studies confirmed that there is no immediate prospect of a concerted move for wholesale integration of complementary and alternative medicine with the wider medical community. 3 4 In both accomplishment and aspiration, the groups are too disparate to be considered as one movement. Indeed it is misleading to view them as such. 
In the 1980s, as complementary therapies became more widely used, many practitioners pressed for the development of complementary medicine as a whole. It soon became clear, however, that it would be more feasible for the various professions to develop at different paces, to reflect the variety of their characteristics and aspirations. Nevertheless, because many practitioners use more than one therapy it may be too complicated and expensive for individual practitioners to belong to separate registers for each therapy. This leads to the argument that legislation should be essentially unitary, with something resembling a Council of Professions Complementary to Medicine. 
The Lords report concluded that the best prospects for coordination are likely to come from each discipline setting its own standards and competence. There is an obvious benefit for the public as well as the practitioner in agreeing what a particular therapy actually entails. The final, and most appropriate, shape of any statutory regulation could then emerge more clearly once individual standards have been set. 
In 1997 the Foundation for Integrated Medicine published a discussion document on the way forward for integrated medicine after wide consultation across conventional and complementary medicine.9 The document set out the work of four expert working groups on research and development, education and training, delivery mechanisms, and regulation. It also made important recommendations for regulation of complementary medicine, including criteria for any system of self regulation. The foundation has encouraged integration among complementary medicine professions and has recently received a grant from the King's Fund to help it to work towards forming central regulatory bodies.