Manipulation of the cervical spine is one of the few potentially life-threatening procedures performed by physiotherapists. Is it worth the risk? A comparison of risks versus benefits indicates that at present, the risks of cervical manipulation outweigh the benefits: manipulation has yet to be shown to be more effective for neck pain and headache than other interventions such as mobilisation, whereas the risks, although infrequent, are serious. This analysis is of particular concern because the conditions for which manipulation is indicated are benign and usually self-limiting. Because physiotherapists have legal and ethical obligations to the community to avoid foreseeable harm and provide optimum care, it may be prudent to determine who in our profession should perform cervical manipulation. That is, the profession could restrict the practice of cervical spine manipulation. Although all registered physiotherapists in Australia are entitled to perform cervical manipulation, few choose to use this intervention. Therefore, it might be feasible to encourage those practitioners who wish to use cervical manipulation to undertake formal education programs. Such a requirement could be embodied in a code of practice that discourages those without formal training from performing cervical manipulation. By taking such measures, we could ensure that our profession exercises wisdom in its monitoring and use of cervical manipulation.

No abstract

No abstract

The teaching efforts at Marriott Library are distributed widely across a variety of groups and a range of subject matter. Teaching styles and pedagogical foci are varied and diverse among the librarians in the building. To increase collaboration and raise teaching standards, Graduate and Undergraduate Services (GUS) formulated Guidelines for teaching librarians by using the University of Utah’s Quality Course Framework (QCF) and Marriott Library’s own Four Core Student Library Learning Outcomes and mapping them to the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. To facilitate communication and usability, the Guidelines contain an alignment matrix for librarians to follow through the teaching process. The matrix is also intended to open up new opportunities for conversation and collaboration between librarians and academic staff to better serve student needs. The purpose of this report is to document and reflect upon the collaborative work done by teaching librarians at the University of Utah to create the Teaching Guidelines. The process of this work involved the synthesis and alignment of several models of pedagogical structure as well as the overarching interests and goals of a variety of stakeholders and participants in the teaching environment at the University. The product of these efforts includes clear Teaching Guidelines, alignment with the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy, and an alignment matrix designed to provide a clear map of the teaching philosophies and strategies employed at the library. This report presents the process of creating and implementing the Guidelines and outlines the background of the process, including those institutional, situational, and environmental circumstances which shaped the general course of its development. The report includes an analysis of the pedagogical characteristics of the Guidelines. The report also presents an example of the Guidelines as used in action when developing the library-related content for an undergraduate-level community learning course known as ‘Learning, Engagement, Achievement and Progress’ (LEAP).

No abstract