A site dedicated to athletic training students, athletes, parents, coaches and anyone interested in learning more about injuries at they pertain to sport.
Back when I was in graduate school (was that really 10 years ago?), I completed a project for an Administration course in which I mock "proposed" a fictional ski resort hire an athletic trainer. My reasoning? Concussions and Rehabilitation. Back in 2000, the only options a resort-goer may have is basic first aid, or a trip to a hospital. Why not increase the standard of care on-site I say?! During the proposal, the question was posed if ski patrol should be threatened by the addition of another healthcare provider. My response: absolutely not. The ATC could have space near or in the base lodge; ski patrol could bring a skiier/boarder to them, or perhaps they may have simple walk in visits. And whom better to evaluate a concussion "in the field" or "on the slopes" than an ATC? They could then make a referral and begin a well informed, injury management decision. It seems to me that this would be a welcomed addition of services.
Today's article in USA Today has brought all of this back to me. I haven't been able to watch the documentary (apparently it will be on HBO later on), but here are a a few related clips which may help.
In fact, this idea might fit in quite nicely with the progression of interprofessional education and healthcare delivery.
If you're interested in some good concussion stuff, check out the Head Games trailer here (the full movie is available if you have Netflix).
It's good to be back, both literally and figuratively; I just returned from Sochi, Russia working with our US Bobsled and Skeleton teams, and it was a tremendous experience, as always. Great to see the USBSF family. To learn more about Bobsled & Skeleton, check out: http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Bobsled-and-Skeleton-Federation.aspx
A couple of quick hits to start the week:
This link comes via Kyle Gilson, Head Athletic Trainer at MCI. Really interesting audio about the "Brain Bang Theory". Check it out here, and weigh in!
One of the course I regularly teach is CPR/AED for the Professional Rescuer. It's funny, because almost universally, whether students or health care professionals are enrolled in the course, I always get that "is this going to take a long time?" sense from those enrolled. I've never quite understood it, because it's possibly the most valuable tool one can learn. It is simple, but sometimes details get lost in real life situations. Call EMS, Begin CPR, use an AED as soon as possible. These three items can play an integral part in the survival of an athlete or anyone who collapses at a sporting event. Earlier this week, a local high school in Maine and more specifically, athletic training students and the athletic trainer displayed how proper training can be used effectively. You can read about this story here.
Several weeks ago, a physician was presenting at a conference and stated "Who are we responsible for at a sporting event?" It was a great point. He said we often think about providing health care to athletes, but what about the coaches, officials, game support staff, and the family and friends in the crowd? In this case, a game official collapsed and was attended to immediately. It just goes to show you the value of having an AED and trained medical staff on site, and in this case, a positive outcome.
Kudos to Anita Dixon MS, ATC and her athletic training students from USM and UNE.
Her presentation was essentially a primer on how to maintain life balance. I found it interesting; we even meditated for 15 minutes or so. And, I was relaxed afterwards. I felt clearer. To be honest, I never would have done that had I not been forced to. She challenged us if we were truly relaxing regularly, recommended several books I hadn't heard of, but sound interesting, and introduced us (ok, maybe just me) to the Chinese Clock. Very informative, and incredibly enlightening. An unorthodox topic from an ATC...and one that was well heeded.
Then it was off the Maine Athletic Training Student Symposium in Presque Isle, Maine. Each year, one of the four ATEP's in the state host a symposium for all students. For our students, it's a chance to experience something different in a relatively relaxed format. For us educators, it's a chance to catch up and visit. It's always fun. If you haven't seen UMPI yet, you should. It's slogan, "North of Ordinary", is quite accurate and fitting. And I LOVE it. The faculty and students were fantastic hosts, and put on a great program. Bruce Hamilton Dick, MD presented on a variety of topics. I have to say, natural teacher and orator. Very well presented, and he consistently incorporated and challenged students during his lectures. His topics ranged from Hip Arthroscopy and Athletic Pubalgia (phenomenal anatomy review), to the Female Athlete Triad and Asthma. Great, great stuff. His time was much appreciated by all. I only wish all of our students could have attended!
Trying something a bit different; lots of smaller newsworthy (I think) items...
Very interesting meeting the other night. I had a chance to meet up with Kevin Melanson, a fellow ATC who shared his experiences taking athletic training students to Haiti this past summer. It was his first trip, and he plans on returning again this winter. You can actually read about his experience here.
Some pictures of his students:
I can't tell you how refreshing and uplifting listening to his story was for me personally. Having advocated or the inclusion of service learning for some time, it sure is nice to see. I heard so many similar experiences, thoughts, revelations, etc. All I could really do was smile! Experiences like this always remind me of a lingering question: Why isn't service learning mandated as part of a core curriculum? As part of a general education requirement, this could easily be infused into all US Colleges & Universities. There is a need EVERYWHERE, here and abroad.
I blogged about how the NFL was making some changes to how medical personnel manage injuries during the game a while back. Well, this recent newspaper article was passed along to me by a colleague, and I found it to be a quick and fun read. Great to see how recent advancements can be used to improve communication and overall initial management. Enjoy
October is fully upon us; leaves falling, colder weather, and pink is everywhere. Every sporting event I seem to watch on TV or go visit our students at seems to have some eye catching pink item for sale. High school, college and even professional sports have fully embraced the movement. Now before I begin, I encourage you to read the entire post to understand where I'm coming from...you don't have to agree, but just understand where I'm coming from.
I don't like pink everywhere (and been quite vocal about it for years). I also don't like saying so, because I also don't like cancer, and saying I'm against Pink insinuates I'm against Breast Cancer Awareness. Or at least that's the impression I sense. I'm all for philanthropy and helping others. I'm left with the question burning in my mind: But is it doing anything? I just don't think we are going about it the right way. I think it may be more about the movement than actually helping determine what causes cancer. I think it's much more commercialization than anything else. And where does all that money go? Well, enter the documentary, Think Pink Inc. Here is a brief trailer:
It's an edgy topic for sure. How can you not like "pink movements" which promote breast cancer awareness. My question has always been, where does the money go, and what about the other cancers? Check out this link which shows you the death rates and occurrence of cancers. Indeed, according to the CDC link provided, breast cancer is most common in women, but prostate cancer actually has a higher rate of occurrence (144/100,000 as compared to 122/100,000). Perhaps even more interesting, though, is mortality rate. It's not even close. Lung cancer has the highest mortality rate in both men and women (actually, almost double the rate in women when compared to breast cancer).
Well, here are a few points teased out from the documentary I watched last night which I thought were interesting.
1. Less than 5% of money raised actually goes to researching prevention of cancer. This means that it's not going to finding a cause or potential causes of cancer.
2. Cancer rates have actually increased over the decades, from 1 in 22 to 1 in 8.
3. People need to talk. What if all researchers stopped "racing each other", and opened up a dialogue about what they were studying; it could prevent overlap, and may gain some headway.
4. When physicians found that early mammograms were giving too much radiation and therefore unsafe, they were shipped to developing countries for use there. (global responsibility?)
5. Susan G. Komen for the Cure has now expanded internationally, holding events all over the world. There is no doubt they have raised vast amounts of money and donated much...but a fair question to ask is "Is it doing what we need it to do?"
6. Many companies actually stand to profit from increased consumerism surrounding purchasing their pink lines (Avon, Yoplait, Pharmaceutical Companies, etc.)
I think what really got to me was later in the documentary, they actually described the origin of the salmon ribbon, started by a woman to promote cancer awareness. She was approached by both a magazine and retail provider, who wanted to market her ribbon. Her response: No. She didn't want it to be used for commercial purposes. Their response: they simply changed the color from salmon to pink and took it. Gotta love corporate America baby!
I thought the real drive home point was that the documentary wasn't really "anti-pink", as much as they just wanted to show the real face of cancer, which isn't pretty and nice, and really use money to look at potential environmental causes, etc, rather than medications to treat. Perhaps the most emotional part of the film was listening to the Stage IV group, who took exception to the terms "survivor" (does anyone really survive) and "fight", implying that they didn't give it their all when "fighting" cancer. In fact, they stated that it's not really a fight as much as it is enduring difficult treatments. For those who are unaware, Stage IV is the final stage. There is no Stage V for cancer. At any rate, an interesting documentary (although the geek in me wanted way more statistics) and worth a shot if you want to know where all that money you are donating is actually going to. I won't give away too much more (you really should watch the video for yourself on Netflix)
If you navigate the Pink Ribbon website, it appears the same as others, but if you examine the homepage more closely, it differs in the fact that it actually tells you the percentage of donated money used, and where it goes. Novel concept. It also has a link to the cosmetic safety database, which is an awesome tool. You can enter your common household items for cleaning, or beauty and see where their ingredients stack up on the carcinogen or toxic list. It's good stuff.
One last question: Does this movement inspire hope for cancer patients...or the loved ones surrounding them...or both? Does any of this matter? For instance, who cares where the money goes as long as one person is helped. Talk about an intersection topic. At any rate, feel free to share your thoughts.
.jpg)
