Orthopaedic Physical Therapy: Update to the Description of Specialty Practice

Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy: A Modern Definition and Description

Currently, orthopaedic manual physical therapy (OMPT) lacks a description of practice that reflects contemporary thinking and embraces advances across the scientific, clinical, and educational arms of the profession. The absence of a clear definition of OMPT reduces understanding of the approach across health care professions and potentially limits OMPT from inclusion in scientific reviews and clinical practice guidelines. For example, it is often incorrectly classified as passive care or incorrectly contrasted with exercise-therapy approaches. This perspective aims to provide clinicians, researchers, and stakeholders a modern definition of OMPT that improves the understanding of this approach both inside and outside the physical therapist profession. The authors also aim to outline the unique and essential aspects of advanced OMPT training with the corresponding examination and treatment competencies. This definition of practice and illustration of its defining characteristics is necessary to improve the understanding of this approach and to help classify it correctly for study in the scientific literature. This perspective provides a current definition and conceptual model of OMPT, defining the distinguishing characteristics and key elements of this systematic and active patient-centered approach to improve understanding and help classify it correctly for study in the scientific literature.

Description of Specialty Practice-10 Years Onward: The Changes in Geriatric Physical Therapy

BACKGROUND

An analysis of practice is conducted by the American Board of Physical Therapy Specialties (ABPTS) every 10 years to revalidate, update, and revise the description of specialty practice (DSP) for each specialty. The Geriatric Specialty Council recently conducted an analysis of practice and revised its content consistent with established procedures by the ABPTS.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is threefold: first, to describe the process of the most recent practice analysis; second, to report revisions to the description of specialty practice based on the analysis of practice; and third, to identify elements of practice that define current specialist practice in geriatric physical therapy.

METHODS

A 10-member committee of subject matter experts (SMEs) and a psychometric consultant developed a survey instrument addressing geriatric physical therapy specialty practice areas. The survey was initially pilot-tested and subsequently administered online to a sample of 801 board-certified geriatric clinical specialists. The consultant facilitated the consensus process to determine decision rules in selecting the final competencies describing current geriatric physical therapy specialty practice.

RESULTS

A total of 372 respondents fully or partially completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 46.4%. Based on a priori decision rules regarding survey data, consensus of the group of SMEs, and input from the ABPTS, the DSP for geriatric physical therapy specialty practice was revised. Revisions (elimination [-] of prior items and addition [+] of new items) were made in Section 1: Knowledge Areas (-8 and +6), in Section 2: Professional Roles, Responsibilities, and Values (-14 and +4), and Section 3: Practice Expectations (-53 and +28).

CONCLUSION

The revised DSP will be used as the basis for the development of the examination blueprint for the specialist examination in geriatric physical therapy and the curricula for residency programs in geriatric physical therapy.

Movement System Theory and Anatomical Competence: Threshold Concepts for Physical Therapist Anatomy Education

This viewpoint proposes eight anatomy threshold concepts related to physical therapist education, considering both movement system theory and anatomical competence. Movement system theory provides classifications and terminology that succinctly identifies and describes physical therapy practice from a theoretical and philosophical framework. The cardiovascular, pulmonary, endocrine, integumentary, nervous, and musculoskeletal systems are all included within this schema as the movement system theory encompasses all body systems interacting to create movement across the lifespan. Implementing movement system theory requires an ability to use human anatomy in physical therapist education and practice. Understanding the human body is a mandatory prerequisite for effective diagnosis, assessment, treatment, and patient evaluation. Anatomical competence refers to the ability to apply anatomic knowledge within the appropriate professional and clinical contexts. Exploring the required anatomical concepts for competent entry-level physical therapist education and clinical practice is warranted. The recommended threshold concepts (fluency, dimensionality, adaptability, connectivity, complexity, stability or homeostasis, progression or development, and humanity) could serve as an integral and long-awaited tool for guiding anatomy educators in physical therapy education.

The Utilization of Interval Throwing Programs in the Physical Therapy Setting: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Context: Interval throwing programs (ITPs) have long been used in the physical therapy setting to aid in the safe and efficacious return to sport for an overhead athlete. However, the overall utilization and variation of ITPs are unknown in the physical therapy setting leading to potential inconsistencies in treatment paradigms. Objective: To determine if differences in practice patterns exist among active physical therapists of various experience levels with regard to years of experience and advanced certifications. Design: Cross-sectional survey study. Participants: A total of 133 licensed physical therapists consented to participate in an online-based survey. Experience groups were delineated based on years of practice (0-1, 1-5, 6-15, and 15+) and possession of advanced certification. Main Outcome Measures: For ranking-based data, a generalized linear mixed model was repeated across criteria response with a Bonferroni post hoc adjustment for pairwise comparisons made within and between groups (α < .05). For degree-based questions, chi-square analysis was used to compare response frequencies for options provided within each question. Results: A 76.7% response rate was achieved with 102 out of the 133 consenting individuals completed the survey. Significant differences (P < .05) were found with responses to both ranking-based and degree-based questions. However, across all groups, physical therapists agreed that throwing mechanics and customized ITP implementation were important for a successful return to throwing. Conclusions: There are inherent differences in ITP prescription among physical therapists with dissimilar experience levels. The possession of advanced certifications and years of practice seem to play a role in how interval programs are prescribed to overhead-throwing athletes. This study helps to identify differences in current physical therapy approaches toward the later stages of rehabilitation for throwing athletes. Further research should identify areas of improvement in physical therapist education as well as appropriate ITP prescription parameters to optimize care and treatment for this patient population.