“Proliferation of these staffing models (increasing the use of PTA’s and aides) has been driven by managed care organizations, the introduction of prospective payment systems, and low reimbursement rates, as well as workforce shortages in allied health.”
For those that are unfamiliar with physical therapy and what the titles mean lets do a quick refresher:
PTA = licensed physical therapist assistant (high school + 2 years)
PT = licensed physical therapist (Bachelor’s or Bachelor’s + years)
aide = no required degree with on the job training (no degree needed)
MPT = Master of physical therapy degree (Bachelor’s plus 27 months)
DPT = Doctor of physical therapy degree (Bachelor’s plus 33 months)
Based on the above, one can see that the aide would be paid less than the PTA. The PTA would get paid less than the PT based on education level alone and all other things are equal.
When insurance companies cut pay to professionals, companies have to decrease their costs in order to continue to make margin. One way to cut costs is to have fewer PT’s and more PTA’s or aides. The ethics/legalities of the decision are for a different day.
Some insurance companies are refusing to pay for services provided by PTA’s.
The reason that I bothered to look at this research was a large discussion that took place on a professional FB page in which PTA’s were arguing that the care shouldn’t change from PTA to PT, seeing as PTA’s can perform most treatments that a PT can perform.
I decided to look into this to see if there was a difference and I was shocked by what I found, based on my own experience working in a hospital system. On the same note, I wasn’t shocked based on some of the reports that I hear from patients and others in the profession.
“Use of support personnel in outpatient therapy settings can double the number of patient visits a therapist can manage per day, thus increasing clinical productivity.”
If I am a PT making $50/hour (using round numbers to keep it simple) and in a typical day I could treat 10 patients with an average reimbursement rate of $95 (please go watch all the videos from Dr. Ben Fung ), then I would cost the company $400 dollars, but make the company $950 dollars. A gross profit, with the removal of only the PT salary, of $550 dollars per day.
Now, if we have that same PT making $50/hour and a PTA making $30/hour (again round numbers to keep it simple), with each therapist seeing 10 patients per day, then the following numbers are the result. The salaries would cost $640, but the therapists would generate $1900/day. A gross profit, with salaries of the therapists removed, of $1260/day.
As you can see, the company would be able to generate more money by hiring PTA’s instead of a second PT. The question then becomes is it cost effective to have the PTA compared to the second PT. The answer at a glance is “of course”!, but looking a little deeper may force a company to weigh values (i.e. profit or outcomes) before making that second hire.
“While some advocate use of support personnel to increase productivity without loss of quality, others warn that an over reliance on support personnel can negatively affect outcomes and compromise quality.”
This is essentially the discussion that occurred on FB. Some people say that PTA’s provide the same quality of care as PT’s and others state that PTA’s offer less quality care than PT’s.
I’ve worked with rockstar PTA’s (plus my wife is a PTA so I am already a little biased) and I’ve worked with some PT’s that I would never refer a patient to (no offense if you think that this is you).
“Three dependent variables were analyzed: high PTA utilization, number of visits per treatment episode, and patients FHS (functional health status) at discharge…high PTA utilization, defined as a patient seen by a PTA 50 percent or more of the treatment time”
High PTA utilization, in this study, meant that the PTA was seen by the PTA for over 50% of the visits.
Again, I have worked in locations in which this was true and locations in which we had no PTA’s, so I have seen the results from both.
Looking at treatments per episode is a means of measuring efficiency of treatment. It may not be the best measurement, but is one way of looking at treatment efficiency.
Looking at outcomes is one way of looking at effectiveness of treatment. Again, it may not be the best way, but it is one way.
“…less than 2 percent of patients were treated by the PTA for more than 75% of the treatment time, and 8 percent were treated by the PTA 50% of the time or more.”
I’ve been in clinics without PTA’s and with PTA’s. This stat will be correlated with the amount of PT’s/PTA’s in the clinic.
In private practice, it was 0 PTA’s. In the hospital we had 1.5 PTA’s for 4 PT’s. Currently, in my practice there are 2 PTA’s for 1.5 PT’s.
“The second dependent variable, number of visits per treatment episode…We believed that fewer visits per treatment episode were a marker of greater efficiency of care”
This is debatable by people. I’ve actually been involved in these on-line debates. Some people will fight that more visits equals better, but more is not always better.
If we can get patients better in shorter visits, then this seems to be ideal to me. If additional visits would correlate with increased function, then I would be all for increased visits if the patient is willing and able to pay for increased visits (time and money).
“The majority of physical therapy care was delivered by PTs with no reported assistance from PTAs.”
Again, in a clinic without PTA’s, there will be no reported assistance from PTA’s. This study used data from FOTO, which included private practices and hospital based practices.
“PTAs were involved in the care of patients only 35% of the time. High PTA utilization was relatively uncommon, with only 7.7 percent of the patients seen by PTAs more than 50% of the time.”
This is interesting. It is becoming more and more common to find clinics advertising/marketing that the patient will only be seen by a PT, or even a step further a Doctor of Physical Therapy. I don’t know how well this marketing is going.
When seeing it, it subconsciously implies that a DPT is better than a PTA. I think that this is very individualized. For example, a PTA that has continued to improve over the years through independent study may be a better clinician than a PT that never sees patients (administration/teacher/manager).
“Medicare patients who were seen in private practice were 48 percent less likely to have had high PTA utilization.”
Some insurance companies require that a patient be seen by a PT and prohibit PTA’s from treating patients. This will skew numbers towards the PT in private practice.
“Treatment with a therapy aide for 1-25 percent time and greater than 25 percent compared with 0 percent, and high utilization of the PTA were associated with 1.8, 2.6 and 2.0 more visits, respectively.”
Lets break this down.
Being treated by a therapy aide for 1-25% of the time resulted in 1.8 more patient visits per episode.
Being treated by a therapy aide for > 25% of the time resulted in 2.6 more visits per episode.
Being treated by a PTA for greater than 50% of the time resulted in 2.0 more visits.
Remember, an aide is someone that may not have any college experience or degrees. The aide is not legally able to treat patients that are payed by the government.
Utilizing an aide only results in slightly more visits than using a PTA! Why is this?!
I see employers trying to cut costs by hiring more aides (not ethical to call it physical therapy if it is not provided by a licensed physical therapy professional IMO).
If it doesn’t change the outcomes though, who’s to argue against it?
I can see both sides of the coin. Margins (profits) in physical therapy is small, so cutting costs is a business decision.
Providing quality care is something that IMO we should all strive for.
“Greater than 50% time spent with the PTA was predictive of lower discharge scores as was time spent with a therapy aide.”
This part may be the most important statistic in the article. Seeing someone other than the PT led to worse outcomes.
This is the statistic that I was looking for because of the original question asked.
In other words, the PT will get a patient better than a non-PT and do it faster in an outpatient setting.
Strong words for businesses and people looking to go to PT school.
What is the future of PTA’s? I don’t know. Medicare just announced that they will be reducing reimbursement rates for PTA’s in an outpatient setting. Pair this with the small margins in physical therapy and the question becomes is it profitable to hire PTA’s in an outpatient setting, seeing patients according to Medicare rules?
“…our analysis shows that Medicare regulations for continuous in-room supervision of PTA’s in private practice are associated with a decreased likelihood of high PTA utilization.”
“High utilization of PTA’s, and use of therapy aides were each independently associated with more visits per treatment episode, and lower functional health. Thus our findings suggest that use of care extenders such as PTA’s and therapy aides in place of PT’s is associated with more costly and lower quality care delivery in outpatient rehabilitation.”
I advise all people to look to the source:
“Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) is the term given to the variety of symptoms often reported by people following acceleration/deceleration injury to the neck.”
Most people understand the term whiplash is related to an auto accident. After the basics, everything else is like the teacher from the Charlie Brown An acceleration/deceleration injury is exactly what it sounds like. I’m sure that if you have an older sibling you understand this concept. My friends, I won’t say any names (Tom and Carl) used to brake abruptly to see if they could get someone to spill their drink. It’s kind of like that, only more forceful.
When the car comes to an abrupt stop, the body will continue forward thanks to the laws of inertia. It will typically be stopped by a seatbelt. Some though, may be stopped by a windshield.
“Cardinal symptom is neck pain but neck stiffness, dizziness, paresthesia/anesthesia in the upper quadrant, headache and arm pain are also commonly reported.”
I have seen a plethora of patients after a motor vehicle accident (MVA). Neck pain and stiffness seem to be the most common complaint anecdotally, but I have also seen the headache and arm symptoms.
Part of the problem with such diffuse symptoms is that not every professional will treat the patient, but instead will treat the situation. This means that when a patient presents with symptoms that may not make sense, the professional then inserts individual bias and believes that the patient must be making up the symptoms. I have seen this over the years in which the PT/PTA/PA/MD believe that the patient is FOS (not a medical abbreviation). Be that the case, it is still our job to try to help that patient. If the patient is exaggerating symptoms, we still have to sift through the exaggerations in order to determine what is organic (with a physical cause) and what is non-organic (without physical cause).
“…whiplash injuries comprise (about) 75% of all survivable road traffic crash injuries.”
Just this year I was involved in two MVA’s. Neither of which were my fault. As an aside, I have never met anyone that said an accident was his/her fault, in the clinic at least. Luckily, both MVA’s that I was involved the other person admitted fault immediately. The first accident involved me T-boning another car doing 45 mph (someone tried making a U-turn on a 4 lane highway). I experienced shock during the first accident and it took me a while to calm down. I had back pain and neck pain, but as a professional, I knew that it would subside on its own. This is exactly what happened, over the course of a month. The best thing that I did was return to lifting and normal activities. The second accident involved me being rear-ended with the other person going 40-45 mph. Again, I had some back and neck pain.
Body heal thyself. Father time is a powerful motivator and I was back to 100% within a couple of months.
“Consistent with international data indicate that approximately 50% of people who sustain a whiplash injury will not recover but will continue to report ongoing pain and disability one year after the injury”
There are so many variables that go into a person experiencing chronic pain. Extent of tissue damage is not the only variable that needs to be assessed. Sometimes people just feel wronged by life and this stress of life may contribute to symptoms.
We know that most tissue damage heals relatively quickly (at least quickly when relative to a lifespan).
“…recovery, if it occurs, takes place within the first 2-3 months following the injury with a plateau in recovery following this time point”
We know that most healing takes place over the course of weeks to months. With this, we have to question the cause of this roadblock to recovery. Is it truly tissue damage or is there something else at play?
“…good recovery, where initial levels of pain-related disability were mild to moderate and recovery was good, with 45% of people predicted to follow this pathway”
Glass half empty/Glass half full?
About half of the people with WAD will experience a good outcome. Considering that not much has to be done with this group, I can see some healthcare providers taking responsibility for good outcomes. I used to work for a clinic that tried to get people into the clinic as fast as possible with the idea being that if we don’t get the patient in fast enough, then the patient may get better on his/her own.
Think about that? We know that most things get better with time, so we want the patient to believe that it was us and our treatment that helped them the most. As much as I can see this from a marketing perspective, from a global health perspective…it just ain’t right.
Sometimes the patients just need some advice to stay active and come back in 4-6 weeks if there is no change in symptoms.
I was in a course once talking to a PT and I asked that therapist, who also happened to be a business owner: “how do you know that you have had a successful episode of care?”
That therapist’s answer was: “The insurance has been exhausted”
Whether the therapist was joking or not, the fact that this perception is out there that the patient should be bled dry (at least monetarily) is disturbing.
Remember this when you are working in a clinic (if you’re a healthcare professional) or when you are going to see your healthcare professional.
“…initial moderate to severe pain-related disability, with some recovery but with disability levels remaining moderate at 12 months. Around 39% of injured people are predicted to follow this pathway.”
Now we are starting to play. I use this term “play” as a measure of patient severity. For instance, when playing basketball with my 4-year old, it’s not really playing the game as much as it is just toying around. When playing the game against someone that I have never beaten before, I have to study the player, understand the player’s moves, his/her strengths and weaknesses, tendencies when under pressure, establish my game plan against their moves etc. This is how I perceive a patient and symptoms when they enter the clinic. I am studying that patient and the symptoms in order to best understand what that patient is experiencing.
I believe that only through understanding the tendencies of the symptoms are we truly able to help/assist the patient in this journey to reduce pain and return to full function.
“…involves initial severe pain-related disability and some recovery to moderate or severe disability, with 16% of individuals predicted to follow this pathway”
I love listening to this guy. He has a way of explaining severity of pain that is just not taught in most healthcare programs. Understanding that pain is an experience is more important for the healthcare providers, because without this understanding, we can not explain this phenomenon to the patient.
“The most consistent risk factors for poor recovery are initially higher levels of reported pain and initially higher levels of disability.”
With this, the thought exists that we may be able to affect recovery with WAD if we can simply reduce pain. We may be able to reduce pain in some populations through education.
Maybe we should attempt to use education as a means to reduce pain before we try other interventions such as heat, cold, manual therapy, etc.
It may go something like this:
Therapist: You know Mr. Smith, I have done my evaluation and there is some good news; you’re going to get better.
Mr. Smith: How do you know?
Therapist: There was nothing in my exam that showed that there was any major structural damage and we know that tissue injuries tend to improve on their own over the course of weeks to months.
Mr. Smith: That is good news!
“lower expectations of recovery have been shown to predict poor recovery”
This may be the factor that healthcare professionals should focus time trying to change. As much as we speak to patients about tissue damage and injuries, we need to spend time in conversation understanding what they believe the barriers are to a successful recovery.
Taking the extra 10 minutes per session to have these conversations and together problem-solving ways to overcome these barriers may be more important than an extra 2 minutes on an arm bike or an extra set of banded rows etc.
Patients are people first and foremost and not a sum of body parts. Breaking through perceived barriers is an important first step to providing the right interventions to patients. Sometimes the intervention is only education and other times it may be more integrative of exercise, manual therapy and other modalities at our disposal.
“Some factors commonly assessed by physiotherapists do not show prognostic capacity. These factors include measures of motor and sensorimotor function such as the craniocervical flexion test, joint repositioning errors and balance loss”
We all learn tests and measures in school. A great world would be inclusive of tests that actually mean something. Testing balance and strength and positional awareness are all good tests to take time and give information to physicians or insurance companies, but in the end they don’t actually do much to tell the story of the patient.
We need to identify patients that will respond to therapy and those that may need for than just PT. With that said, we also need to be able to identify those patients that will get better on their own. Not all patients need to see a physical therapists, we just don’t have a way of telling one subset from another at this time.
“The QTF classification of whiplash injuries was put forward in 1995 and it remains the classification method still currently used throughout the world”
This is the Quebec Task Force Classification:
|I||No neck complaints and no physical signs|
|II||Neck complaints of pain, stiffness or tenderness only and no physical signs|
|III||Neck complaints and MS signs including 1. Decreased ROM 2. Point tenderness|
|IV||Neck complaints and Neuro signs including: 1. Decreased or absent DTR 2. Muscle weakness 3. Sensory deficits|
|V||Neck complaint and fracture or dislocation|
“Current clinical guidelines for the management of acute WAD recommend that radiological imaging be undertaken only to detect WAD grade IV and that clinicians adhere to the Canadian C-Spine rule when making the decision to refer the patient for radiographic examination”
For those that are unfamiliar with, or forgot, the C-Spine rules (including myself), here is the link.
“…the same general examination procedures usually adopted for the examination of any cervical spine condition but with some additional procedures based on research findings of WAD”
When a patient presents to therapy, with complaints of neck pain, after a motor vehicle accident here are some things that a patient can expect (if you are a PT, then these are the things that we should be doing as an at least)
- Range of motion using a large compass
- Assessing strength in the arms/neck
- Assessing any loss of sensation
- Assessing loss of reflexes
- Assessing grip strength
- Assessing patient perception of symptoms using an outcome meaure
- Assessing joint integrity using special tests and symptom change
- Assessing nerve irritability
“…many patients with WAD will report diffuse symptoms of sensory loss or gain and generalised muscle weakness, both of which may be bilateral, but these findings do not necessarily indicate peripheral nerve compromise and may be a reflection of altered central nociceptive processes.”
Some clinicians think that if a symptom doesn’t match what was learned in school that the symptom must be made up. We’ve all been around these clinicians that believe that patients must be “faking”, “malingering” or just out for the $$$ after an accident.
Truth is that we have no reliable way to tell if a patient is “faking”. We may be able to tell if a patient is providing full effort during our examinations, but we can’t know anything beyond this.
The first thing that we need to understand is that the nervous system is complex. Now, when I see a patient that reports increased sensitivity in an area, I report it as such. Previously I would report a decreased sensation in the opposite side tested. I didn’t understand, at that time, that a person could experience hypersensitivity in an area.
“…strong evidence for the presence of augmented central nervous system processing of nociception in chronic WAD and moderate evidence that cold hyperalgesia is associated with poor recovery from the injury”
The nervous system appears to be boss. When it is experiencing stress, it can drastically change how the person perceived different stimulus. I recently had a patient that was so sensitive that she noted her pain increased with the breeze from a ceiling fan.
Think of a car alarm set to really sensitive. We all have seen a car alarm that goes off from a sideways glance. This appears to be happening with the nervous system. The system has difficulty processing what is a real threat to the system and what is a normal stimulus.
Patients that have difficulty tolerating cold appear to have a heightened car alarm, which may indicate a poor overall recovery.
“The clinical course of WAD, where most recovery occurs in the first 2-3 months”
In my opinion there are too many of us in healthcare with big egos. We tend to use this basic rationale:
Patient got better. Patient was in physical therapy during this time of improvement. Physical therapy must be the reason the patient got better. 🤔
This type of logic is unfortunately mislead.
Other variables, such as time may have a role more so than the interventions performed during this time.
“The mainstay of management for acute WAD is the provision of advice encouraging return to usual activity and exercise, and this apprpach is advocated in current clinical guidelines.”
ADVICE!? That’s the mainstay?!
Not electrical stimulation?!
How can this be?!
Body heal thyself. 💪🏼👊
“…recent systematic reviews concluding that there is only modest evidence available supporting activity/exercise for acute WAD. It is not clear which type of exercise is more effective or if specific exercise is more effective than general activty of merely advice to remain active.”
The 🥖 and butter of PT may or may not be affective for treating patients immediately post accident.
Lately, I have been seeing many of these patients and there is much education that goes into time based healing on the first few visits.
“…six sessions of physiotherapy was only slightly more effective than a single session of advice from a physiotherapist”
As much as it pains the many wallets of our profession, I definitely agree with this. Some patients that I have seen actually get some relief just from knowing the clinical expectations post WAD.
“…a graded functional exercise approach and advice demonstrated greater improvements in pain intensity, pain bothersomeness and functional ability, compared to advice alone.”
Think of those six sessions from above. A traditional clinic may use 6 sessions in 2 weeks. A clinic that understands the research may use those visits over the course of 6-8 weeks.
A graded functional exercise approach means that the patient is slowly performing more work load over the course of time in order to improve function. This time period is probably no less than 6 weeks since we know that we see significant changes in strength and movement ability over the course of 6 weeks.
“…the recommendation to clinicians is that health outcomes should be monitored and treatment continued only when there is clear improvement.”
It’s unfortunate that this has to be said. I have seen some patients treated in a clinic for months without appreciable improvements. At some point, we have to do what is in the best interest for the patient first and foremost. Having a patient continue to come into the clinic, in the absence of improvement, is a red flag that there may be something else causing symptoms. Also, continuing to treat a patient may do more harm than good because the patient takes on attributes of a “sick” person.
It’s a case in which the medical system may actually cause problems through the use of treatments and information. This type of change in the patient has been labeled as iatrogenic (caused by the medical system).
“Analysis revealed no significant differences in frequency of recovery between pragmatic (medication/physiotherapy/CBT) and usual-care groups at 6 months. There was no improvement in non-recovery rates at 6 months, indicating no advantage of the early interdisciplinary intervention.”
I read previously (I’ll have to go back and look for the article) that early aggressive therapy may actually increase symptoms of patients after a motor vehicle accident.
“Education and advice to return to activity and exercise will still remain the cornerstones of early treatment for WAD”
This year I was rear ended on the highway and T boned on another highway.
Sterling M. Physiotherapy Management of Whiplash-Associated Disorders (WAD). Journal of Physiotherapy. 2014;60:5-12.