This week's discussion focuses on the direction and supervision of support personnel in the physical therapy (PT) profession. I am currently practicing as a PT in the state of Louisiana. Hence, I will be mainly referencing the Louisiana (LA) Physical Therapy Practice Act in the discussion of the two case studies presented in this paper.
The LA PT practice act was enacted to protect the safety and health of the public and regulate the practice of PT in the state.1 And it is the position of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) that it is the obligation of the PT to provide quality and safe therapy services. 2 The two case studies that ensues below will discuss and analyze the applicable supervisory regulations or statutes that
…show more content…
For this particular case study, the PT should have utilized the services of a PTA or another PT to render the intervention while the primary PT was away. A perusal of the policy set forth by the APTA clearly states that “the physical therapist assistant is the only individual permitted to assist a physical therapist in selected interventions under the direction and supervision of a physical therapist”.2 Furthermore, the existing Louisiana PT Practice Act recognizes the PT and PTA as the only individuals authorized by law to engage in the practice of physical therapy.1 Hence, the PT cannot delegate any intervention to individuals not recognized by law to practice the profession. Doing so is a clear violation of the law and subject to disciplinary action from the board of …show more content…
As can be seen from the case study, the PT performed an evaluation to a patient who had an uncemented total hip arthroplasty. However, the PT failed to take into consideration the specific type of arthroplasty the patient had.3 Hence, the plan of care (POC) that was established by the PT was not comprehensive to include the weight-bearing precautions nor the type of hip arthroplasty the patient had. It is important to realize that although the POC is the primary responsibility of the PT, the PTA too has a shared obligation to communicate with the PT if there are concerns regarding the written POC. It is required that PTAs “communicate an understanding of the POC developed by the PT to achieve the short- and long-term goals and intended outcomes”.4 In this particular case study, the PTA should have clarified with the evaluating PT the type of prosthesis used for the patient instead of second-guessing or assuming the type of prosthesis used for the