Qualifications
Sheredos, Carol (NIH/NICHD)
Description
Collection
Title:
Qualifications
Creator:
Sheredos, Carol (NIH/NICHD)
Date:
12/12/2005
Text:
Hi, Craig -
I appreciate your comments and information. Just to tell you where I'm coming from --
When I was in PT school, we had a course in our senior year entitled Rehabilitation Practicum, which took all that we had learned in previously taken courses (such as biomechanics, kinesiology, anatomy, physics, chemistry, etc.) and put a clinical spin on it - We spent over 6 weeks each semester delving into various principles of clinical practice, especially orthotics and prosthetics. We spent time with actual patients, performing evaluations, recommending components and systems, taking casts and measurements, leaning ABOUT fabrication and fitting, training the amputee in their use (hygiene, donning and doffing, pre-prosthetic training, balance, gait training, etc.). After graduation, many of us took a concentrated 4-week (160-hour) course at NYU (2 weeks for orthotics and 2 for prosthetics), which took all of us beyond the above-named skills. When completed, I felt very confident in treating amputees, and, in a pinch, I could fabricate a basic prosthesis or orthosis. I could discern between systems, materials, and components. Several questions regarding O&P were on our state boards, both written and practical.
If what you say is true (I will ask several of my colleagues who are Department Heads in various PT schools), I am VERY upset! That would be a major void. I will always value the breadth and depth of the education in O&P that I received - yes, 40 years ago. A PT without that kind of training should, indeed, NOT perform anything like fitting and fabrication! Agreed. BUT - Hypothetically - What's the difference between a PT who has little O&P skills and some so-called prosthetist or orthotist whose lack of skills (and maybe scruples) makes him/her not much more than a snake-oil salesman? Seems to me that the O&P field has quite a few of them - unregulated due to the lack of state licensure. [I have a few comments about this in another ListServ posting, to be up in a day or so.]
And, Craig - It's NOT about money - Really! It's about the ability to maintain practice areas and to hold onto what is defined (and what CMS and several states recognize) as PT --
The APTA is definitely organized, presenting a unified front, in its pursuit of advancing the profession of physical therapy. [Maybe O&P could learn from them...]
Best wishes and Happy Holidays,
Carol
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office />
-----Original Message-----
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>] On Behalf Of Craig Smith
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:38 AM
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Subject: [OANDP-L] Qualigications
Greeting Carol,
There is the possibility that PT certification 40 years ago included more hours of training in prosthetics than is currently being taught. I personally have taught PTs at the university level about prosthetics and functional levels. This is some of the only training that PT students get about prosthetics today. They are unaware of prosthetic sock management, measuring and casting, bio and pathomechanics, fabrication, current componentry or fit. If the PTs are not trained to deliver such services and certified as such by a CAAHEP accredited program in prosthetics, then PTs have no business stating that they are a qualified to deliver these services. I believe that this whole argument is about money, period, not turf, not qualifications, not anything but money, and the ability to blow smoke up some senators skirt through PAQs in order to reach into another disciplines pocket and steal more money legally. Who suffers, the PT, the CP or CPO, or maybe, the patient?
Craig R. Smith BS, CPO, M.Ed.
Program Coordinator
Orthotic/Prosthetic Technology Program
Baker College of Flint
Health Sciences
1050 W. Bristol Rd.
Flint, Mi. 48507-5508
(810) 766-4194
FAX (810) 766-2055
I appreciate your comments and information. Just to tell you where I'm coming from --
When I was in PT school, we had a course in our senior year entitled Rehabilitation Practicum, which took all that we had learned in previously taken courses (such as biomechanics, kinesiology, anatomy, physics, chemistry, etc.) and put a clinical spin on it - We spent over 6 weeks each semester delving into various principles of clinical practice, especially orthotics and prosthetics. We spent time with actual patients, performing evaluations, recommending components and systems, taking casts and measurements, leaning ABOUT fabrication and fitting, training the amputee in their use (hygiene, donning and doffing, pre-prosthetic training, balance, gait training, etc.). After graduation, many of us took a concentrated 4-week (160-hour) course at NYU (2 weeks for orthotics and 2 for prosthetics), which took all of us beyond the above-named skills. When completed, I felt very confident in treating amputees, and, in a pinch, I could fabricate a basic prosthesis or orthosis. I could discern between systems, materials, and components. Several questions regarding O&P were on our state boards, both written and practical.
If what you say is true (I will ask several of my colleagues who are Department Heads in various PT schools), I am VERY upset! That would be a major void. I will always value the breadth and depth of the education in O&P that I received - yes, 40 years ago. A PT without that kind of training should, indeed, NOT perform anything like fitting and fabrication! Agreed. BUT - Hypothetically - What's the difference between a PT who has little O&P skills and some so-called prosthetist or orthotist whose lack of skills (and maybe scruples) makes him/her not much more than a snake-oil salesman? Seems to me that the O&P field has quite a few of them - unregulated due to the lack of state licensure. [I have a few comments about this in another ListServ posting, to be up in a day or so.]
And, Craig - It's NOT about money - Really! It's about the ability to maintain practice areas and to hold onto what is defined (and what CMS and several states recognize) as PT --
The APTA is definitely organized, presenting a unified front, in its pursuit of advancing the profession of physical therapy. [Maybe O&P could learn from them...]
Best wishes and Happy Holidays,
Carol
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office />
-----Original Message-----
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>] On Behalf Of Craig Smith
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:38 AM
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Subject: [OANDP-L] Qualigications
Greeting Carol,
There is the possibility that PT certification 40 years ago included more hours of training in prosthetics than is currently being taught. I personally have taught PTs at the university level about prosthetics and functional levels. This is some of the only training that PT students get about prosthetics today. They are unaware of prosthetic sock management, measuring and casting, bio and pathomechanics, fabrication, current componentry or fit. If the PTs are not trained to deliver such services and certified as such by a CAAHEP accredited program in prosthetics, then PTs have no business stating that they are a qualified to deliver these services. I believe that this whole argument is about money, period, not turf, not qualifications, not anything but money, and the ability to blow smoke up some senators skirt through PAQs in order to reach into another disciplines pocket and steal more money legally. Who suffers, the PT, the CP or CPO, or maybe, the patient?
Craig R. Smith BS, CPO, M.Ed.
Program Coordinator
Orthotic/Prosthetic Technology Program
Baker College of Flint
Health Sciences
1050 W. Bristol Rd.
Flint, Mi. 48507-5508
(810) 766-4194
FAX (810) 766-2055
Citation
Sheredos, Carol (NIH/NICHD), “Qualifications,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 5, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/225907.
