Student/Practitioner

NMAHM® Current situation & considerations for the future

The Approach appears popular in terms of the number of organisations and of people who profess to use it, and/or declare their practice to be based upon it. Yet it is also apparent that there are ongoing issues within practice, and sometimes marked variation in what is defined to be NMA/NMAHM® and non-NMA/NMAHM®, associated theories and advocated methods.

The Approach is a defined intellectual property – protected by both copyright and registered trademark legislation. Yet various elements of the intellectual property seem to be being used/promoted/disseminated by many others than those who have applied for, and been granted permission from MovES Ltd to use such materials.

Materials purported to reflect NMA (which do not) are appearing from many different areas which are incongruent with the philosophy, theory and practice of the NMA/NMAHM®.

The NMAHM® forms one of the few systems of movement that is defined by name, and has

• an identifiable provenance (from conceptual origin throughout key stages in the history of its development);


• been found to be valid across the spectrum of professional movement-based practices including manual handling for over 30 years (with roots traceable back to the 1930s).

As such the Approach has many of the necessary requirements for enabling it to develop as a defined professional body.

But the development of the NMAHM® is being hampered by some people and their actions indicated to be in the name and spirit of the Approach resulting in eg:

• inconsistencies between practitioners – between, and within different teams/organisations, etc


• inconsistencies between advocated practices – between, and within different teams/organisations, etc


• application of individual misinterpretations, and reported forcing of others to accept such misinterpretation despite evident conflict and contradiction with other elements of in-house practice and/or NMAHM®


• frustration associated with knowing that some in-house activities cannot be defended either from a professional practice or fundamental risk assessment perspective, and/or fail to uphold key NMAHM® principles espoused by MovES Ltd causing misrepresentation of the Approach, other NMAHM® practitioners, and MovES Ltd's standing


• inappropriate use of copyrighted materials derived either directly from MovES  Ltd, or which are recognised/recognisable as being copied from MovES Ltd, as being primarily propounded/used by MovES Ltd or earlier informations  from eg MovES, or other  individuals identified within the development of the NMAHM® people 


• inappropriate claims re ability or failure to gain permission to develop and/or deliver NMA/NMAHM® input.

Any level of study of the NMAHM® should have allowed students to identify the practical value of the NMAHM®, its focus regarding the importance of enabling others to be able to protect and take care of themselves, and supplied both information and methods to appropriately inform and guide such processes.

It is however recognised that from their NMAHM® study people have potential choices: whether to engage in taking and using the information etc for their own personal support, or (depending upon the study process followed) whether to engage in disseminating such information or processes – or not.

Disseminating information with a focus upon health, safety and well-being and in the name of a defined method carries a variety of responsibilities: to self (the meeting and upholding of associated professional standards), and to others – the recipients of such information, and the originating persons/ body of knowledge.

Such a view informs the Standards of Practice that MovES Ltd personnel place upon themselves, and necessarily to others who wish to identify themselves as NMAHM® practitioners.

Over many years as individual practitioners in our own right, and as MovES Ltd we have attempted to work with people who appeared to be committed to the Approach in order to create a standardised basis of/for NMA/NMAHM® practice.

We feel we have tried to be tolerant of people's requirements of the Approach, factors influencing their behaviour related to the degree of uptake of the Approach etc.

However it is becoming necessary to deal more decisively with those aspects that negatively impact upon the professional status of the Approach, its students and practitioners.

Consultation to date directs that the focus of deciding any course of defined action in dealing with such issues should be the NMAHM® itself rather than individual practitioners; the perceived scope and import of the Approach in contemporary and future professional practice; and the value of it in meeting the myriad requirements of different areas of professional movement practice.

It is therefore proposed by MovES Ltd that a stepped plan requires to be put into action to support as the basis for further developing the Approach, its evidence-base, and associated professional profile.

While many have indicated support for consolidation and future developments it is now necessary to establish exactly who:

• also agrees that they perceive sufficient value in the Approach to support its further development, and


• is willing to act to consolidate gains made to date, and assist in the shaping of its further future development.