Making (Health) Histories Every Year
July 23, 2015
By Rob Kaminski
MHSAA benchmarks editor
Tom Minter, recently retired from the MHSAA as assistant director, wore many hats while serving the Association and donned official’s gear in numerous sports outside of business hours.
But one of his finest refereeing efforts might have come during the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years when he guided approximately 60 individuals representing 25 medical and professional organizations through an arduous process to upgrade the antiquated Physical Form to what is the standard today: the Pre-participation Physical Examination/Health History Form.
The form highlighted Stage 1 of the MHSAA’s 4 Hs of Health and Safety – Health Histories – and the current form is much more comprehensive, answering questions previously not asked during the quicker, more brief, evaluations.
Sudden cardiac death claims the lives of more than 300 Michigan children and young adults between the ages of 1-39 years annually. Yet, many of these deaths could be prevented through screening, detection, and treatment. One such way to detect high risk conditions that predispose to SCDY is through pre-participation sports screening of student-athletes, and the current physical form provides a mechanism.
While much more detailed, schools report that parents are more than willing to take the extra time and effort to complete the lengthier version.
“When the expanded form came out, people kiddingly made comments about its length; yet in today's day and age everyone understands we need all the information we can cultivate regarding health histories of our student athletes,” said Mark Mattson, athletic director at Traverse City Central.
Down state, feelings have been similar. “We don’t have a problem at all here,” said Anna Devitt, athletic secretary at Hartland High School. “Our parents take care of it, and haven’t balked at the length at all.”
Both agree, and are joined by many others across the state, that the next logical step is for the form to be converted to a fillable, online document so that records can be accessed by those in need via mobile, laptop or desktop.
Thus, in the “No H left behind” mantra that the MHSAA has assumed, an electronic option of the Health History form is in the early planning stages.
“As an increasing number of our schools strive to be ‘paper-free,’ or at least as much so as possible, it is time to re-invent the delivery method for perhaps our most downloaded or distributed document,” MHSAA Executive Director Jack Roberts said. “Once again, as we move forward with our ‘Heart’ initiative for the coming school year, we are also intent on bringing other projects up to speed.”
The masses are certainly enthused.
“That would be heavenly. An online version that would prevent people from submitting the forms until all the required information was in place would be fantastic,” said Mattson, who has had to turn back, or hold out students while waiting for completed forms, whether at Marquette, Maple City Glen Lake, or his current post in Traverse City. “It’s always been the same; people move too quickly and overlook required fields. It would prevent two things: one, having to hold kids out while waiting for a signature, and two, prevent parents from having to drive in to the athletic office to sign or fill in that last field. We’d know we were getting a completed form.”
At Hartland, where athletic director Jason Reck created an online emergency contact form, a system is in place which allows coaches, administrators and trainers to share necessary data for all student-athletes in addition to the MHSAA forms.
“Our parents love the online emergency contact form, and we require them to fill it out every season, not just once a year,” Devitt said. “Sometimes an athlete gets injured during one season and the next season's coach wants to know about it.”
The information on the form is populated into an Excel spreadsheet which Reck, Devitt, the school trainer and all coaches can access. They can tailor the data by sport and pull it to their mobile devices.
“We’re trying to go completely paperless, and the MHSAA physical form would be another step,” Devitt said. “Our parents and doctor’s offices would love it.”
And the MHSAA Survey Says ...
April 2, 2015
By Rob Kaminski
MHSAA benchmarks editor
A survey of MHSAA member schools was conducted in the fall of 2014 aimed to determine opinions for and against a myriad of out-of-season coaching/contact period topics within the school year.
Below are some of the summaries drawn from that survey, plus a map of zones referred to in a number of points.
Survey Summary and Highlights
The larger the school, the higher the percentage of students who are involved in organized non-school sports.
The Detroit metro area (Zone 3) has the highest percentage of respondents in each of two groups in which the highest percentage of students are involved in organized non-school sports ... the 60 to 80% and 40 to 60% groups. The Grand Rapids area (Zone 6) ranks second.
The northern Lower Peninsula (Zone 7) and the Upper Peninsula (Zone 8) have the highest percentage of respondents in the group in which the lowest percentage of students are involved in organized non-school sports . . . the 0 to 20% group. This is also true of Zones 1, 2 and 5, although less dramatically.
In the majority of schools, coaches work with students out of season under the three- or four-player rule for a few weeks just before the season. This is generally true regardless of school classification or geographic zone.
In nearly 80% of schools, the frequency of coaches working with students out of season under the three- or four-player rule is one or two days a week.
100% of schools that sponsor basketball hold open gyms for basketball. Two-thirds of volleyball schools hold volleyball open gyms. Half of lacrosse schools hold lacrosse open gyms. Open gyms in baseball, softball and soccer occur in 40 to 45% of responding schools. Open gyms are less common for other sports.
More than half of all schools conduct open gyms for only a few weeks, just before the season begins.
In 85% of schools, the frequency of open gyms is one or two days a week.
The multi-sport athlete is common in schools of every classification, but more common in Class C and D schools than in Class A and B.
The multi-sport athlete is common in schools of every geographical zone, but more common in Zones 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 than in Zones 3, 5 and 6.
Two-thirds of schools do not ban athletes from out-of-season workouts while in-season in a different school sport. Permitting weightlifting is most common (84%), then three- or four-player workouts (70%), then conditioning (66%) and open gyms (65%), and finally non-school competitions (57%).
Single-sport coaches are more common in smaller schools than larger (perhaps because fewer sports are sponsored in smaller schools).
For one question, schools were asked to rate ideas from 1 (I like the concept) to 6 (I do not like the concept). Average would be 3.5.
More than 60% of schools favor a no-contact period for all out-of-season sports at the start of every other sport’s season. (Support ranges from 55% for Class A schools to 65% for Class D schools and from 56% for Zones 1 and 3 to 71% for Zone 7.)
More than 72% of schools favor (in conjunction with a no-contact period) a defined contact period out of season. Support ranges from 69% for Class B schools to 76% for Class D schools and from 64% in Zone 6 to 88% in Zone 1.
Two-thirds of schools favor setting a limit on the number of contact days for out-of-season coaching. Support ranges from 63% for Class A schools to 72% for Class C schools and from 50% for Zone 2 to 73% for Zone 1.
More than 68% of schools favor setting a limit on the number of contact days in a week. There’s almost no difference based on school class. Support ranges from 58% in Zone 6 to 76% in Zone 5.
Counting days more than players – that is, allowing practice with any number of students for a defined number of days over a period of time – is favored by more than 72% of schools. Support ranges from 69% for Class D to 76% for Class A and from 59% for Zone 5 to 76.5% for Zone 3.
The least support of any idea surveyed was for allowing scrimmage competition (allowing the coach to coach any number of students from that coach’s school in competition against individuals not enrolled in that school).
More than 62% of schools favor a rule that would allow a school coach to coach a non-school team within a defined contact period; that is, a team with students from the coach’s school (and possibly other schools too), but not supported with school funds, administration, insurance, uniforms, etc. Support ranged from 58% for Class C schools to 68% for Class B schools. Support ranged from 54% for Zone 2 to 69% for Zone 6.
This is the most popular proposal (doesn’t preclude others being approved too): 84% of schools favor removing the phrase “under one roof” from Regulation II, Section 11(H) 2 a (see Tuesday's report). Support ranged from 80% for Class D schools to 86% for Class C schools and from 78% in Zone 2 to 89% for Zone 5.
Removing the portion of Interpretation 237 which prohibits setting up rotations that would allow a coach to work with dozens of players who rotate to his/her direct attention in groups of three or four is favored by 69% of schools, but with a distinct large school vs. small school difference of opinion: Class A (80.5% favorable), Class B (72.9%), Class C (61.3%) and Class D (61.7%).