|
|
Re: Should DPT's be called "Doctor"?
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Re: Should DPT's be called "Doctor"? - June 10, 2002 6:10:00 PM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
Jay,
That's just it isn't it. Do you truly belive that spending 3 years completing a DPT from UB is really going to provide you with any greater ability to help your patients than will spending 5 years in an MS, PT program at Ithaca?
ANY degree, be it BS, MS, MPT, or DPT must produce a clinican able to assume practice at what TODAY's entry-level happens to be. As a very strong proponent of the DPT myself, I think you've made the right choice, but your assumption that the DPT is somehow in better interest of your patients, though noble, isn't reality.
Today's PT degree, better prepares the graduate than did the PT degree of 5, 10, or 20 years ago. The DPT allows you to to announce that to the world . . . nothing more. The 2002 MPT graduate will have a much harder time demonstrating and proving their superiority in terms of differential diagnosis and imaging from those of pre 1995 graduates. The DPT's don't have to deal with that.
You, on the other hand, will have to deal with the "bill of goods" sold to you by your professors. The DPT is a great thing, don't get me wrong, but your role in physical therapy is to understand the vision of what the DPT should be, and through actions and clinical training of the second generation of DPT's --- remove the obstacles to realization of the "real" DPT imposed by BS and MPT level anti-DPT CI's. We're not counting on you to BE the vision, you're not appropriately trained for that --- 30% of today's DPT education is spent in the clinic with anti-DPT, anti-evidence-based CI's. We're counting on you to graduate, understand that problem, address it --- and TRAIN the DPT vision. The problem is that very few of today's DPT students get that through their heads. No one's ever explained that to them. As such, they enter the workforce with admirable ambition, ambition that's quickly extinguished and replaced with bitterness.
The only way to eliminate that bitterness and reduce professional burn-out, is to go in eyes wide open --- and for me to talk about the following truth doesn't win me many friends among PT faculty, because it risks less gluts in the seats . . .
The lie that you've been sold as a first generation DPT, is that you or any of your cohorts will ever realize the vision of what the DPT is supposed to be. Unless you're trained in the clinic by all DPT's with 20 years of evidence-based experience . . . that's not what you're going to be. That's not ever going to be the role you're going to play.
The DPT is a positive thing, but you've been snowed if you think that in relation to the rest of your graduating class accross the country, that it makes one iota of difference.
Drew
[This message has been edited by Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT (edited June 10, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT (edited June 10, 2002).]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should DPT's be called "Doctor"? - June 17, 2002 10:13:00 AM
|
|
|
ChiroGuy
Posts: 63
Joined: January 24, 2002
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
|
Just thought I'd point out that while 48% of respondents to the below survey (Should DPT's be called "Doctor") answered Yes, a greater number (49%) responded No as of June 17th. Admittedly these results are far from scientific, but it seems a bit telling that even a very biased group of respondents (mailny PT's) should be so split over the issue. My point is not to give an opinion either way, but rather to suggest that before DPT's can lobby for "doctor" status from the public, they must convince their own colleagues of their reasons why.
ChiroGuy
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should DPT's be called "Doctor"? - June 17, 2002 2:41:00 PM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
ChiroGuy,
I think you've got a point. I agree.
Keep in mind however, that RehabEdge is not a professionally organized group of physical therapists. It is a grass-roots cyberorganization consisting of members who may or may not be members of APTA, and as such, may or may not be as up-to-date on the rationale for moving toward the DPT in the first place.
The inability of the APTA to bring non-members into the fold speaks as much to a technican-oriented non-professional mindset on the part of the individual, as the failure of the APTA to provide value for membership. (Cost, it turns out, has been demonstrated by my research to be more often an excuse than a true reason for non-membership).
In any event, I'd point out in kind that when chiropractors on the Dynamic Chiropractic website were asked whether or not chiropractors should be called "chiropractic physicians" as opposed to simply chiropractor, more than an insignificant number (37%) responded no. This has not, however, phased the ACA which pushes on with the title without respect for the concerns of a rather large chunck of licensed chiropractors. I would take note of the same problems with the use of this poll as a scientific measure, but it seems equally telling to me that even a very biased group of respondents (mailny DC's) should be so split over the issue.
My point, like yours, is not to give an opinion either way, but rather to suggest that before DC's can lobby for "physician" status from the public, they must convince their own colleagues of their reasons why.
Still, if the ACA pushes the term "physician" without clear convincing of all DC's, why should the APTA be required to do so --- especially considering that many rank-and-file PT's are concerned (not that any would ever admit it) that DPT's may in fact be better trained and outcompete more "experienced" PT's out of jobs"
Drew
[This message has been edited by Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT (edited June 17, 2002).]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should DPT's be called "Doctor"? - June 17, 2002 3:21:00 PM
|
|
|
ChiroGuy
Posts: 63
Joined: January 24, 2002
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
|
Hey Drew,
Good to be back. School got extremely busy over the last few months so I haven’t been able to keep up here. Interesting points you brought up, and very aptly pointed out. I have to agree with your points; as you surely know there are large divisions in chiropractic philosophies that make it very difficult for the profession as a whole to agree on new initiatives. Start talking about “medicalizing” Chiropractic and get ready for a bloody war. To be honest I haven’t heard about the ACA pushing for a new title for DC’s, but I’m sure it’ll raise some eyebrows (and guns [IMG]http://www.rehabedge.com/forums/wink.gif[/IMG]) once it starts progressing.
The only point of yours I have to disagree with is your assertions that if chiropractors can do it, so can physiotherapists. This is a very dangerous way to defend a profession and can be to a slippery slope – justifying practices based on the possibly erroneous actions of others will someday come back and bite ya in the ass. I’m not trying to be high and mighty here, just pointing out that two wrongs don’t make a right.
I’m starting to sound like my Mom, so I’m gonna shut up now. I’ll be interested to hear what you have to say.
ChiroGuy
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should DPT's be called "Doctor"? - June 17, 2002 6:08:00 PM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
Don't have much to say at all. I agree.
I think that both DCs and DPTs are adequately trained to act in the role of portal-of-entry primary care practitioners.
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should DPT's be called "Doctor"? - June 18, 2002 6:19:00 AM
|
|
|
mcap
Posts: 652
Joined: February 8, 2000
Status: offline
|
Chiro Guy and Drew:
As I have stated before, the emphasis should be on scope of practice and the rigour of entry level preparation. The doctor thing is, for me, a secondary issue.
Perhaps PTs in hospitals should eshew the title and PTs in private practice could use it. Who knows???? Perhaps we shouldn't use the title at all. I don't think it is the primary issue. Too many PTs and even educators are making it one. It probably will be those of us and those of other professions who have the least to offer that will use the title the most. Many physicians I know who are very competant and comfortable with themselves insist I call them by their first name.
mcap
mcap
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should DPT's be called "Doctor"? - June 18, 2002 4:28:00 PM
|
|
|
neilmc
Posts: 3
Joined: May 30, 2002
From: New Albany,IN
Status: offline
|
Bobcat, you seem to really understand what the heck is going on. I really don't get it. At my hospital, we recieved info. on the DPT from a DPT on a clinical. Her CI, by the way, was a PT. Not an MPT, MSPT or a DPT. Ironic huh? In her inservice about DPT it sounds like the profession is going after a bigger paycheck. There really wasn't anything she said that would make me believe she would perform better in a clinical setting than any other PT. I work with PTs and MPTs. I don't see any difference in their skills as therapists. That being said, what is the criteria for admittance into a DPT program? If there is no prior clinical experience, then they need it. The DPT student was as green as any other student. I really don't care what she learned from a book. If she can't back it up in the clinic or hospital then I wouldn't want her to touch my cat which I am about to put to sleep. If PT is going to cross the boundry into diagnosing and treating, they best get ready for the consequences that come with that responsibility. I am from the U.S. and not all states have direct access. So, DPTs should not call themselves doctors. This will make the patient think they are something that they are not. I have been out for 5 years and was an aide for three. I have treated about every diagnosis possible and have yet to see anything new and cutting edge that will bring outcomes any different than what I have seen.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should DPT's be called "Doctor"? - June 19, 2002 4:26:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
Neil,
Tough love time . . . I think you miss the point entirely. If you honestly think that you're just as good a PT without the ability to understand and communicate with other heatlhcare professionals about radiographic imaging, or diagnose your patient's back pain as more than simply "non-musculoskeletal" but rather be able to diagnose the difference between kidney disfunction, a UTI, and/or cancer . . . then there's nothing I can say to convince you.
If you think that it's unimportant to be able to separate, by radiographic imaging, which children with autism are appropriate for SI and to which it may be dangerous and harmful . . . then there's nothing I can say to convince you either.
Either will have a HUGE impact upon therapeutic outcomes of your patients.
Some PT's, however, are content to practice as technical non-professionals. If that's you, then so be it. That's your right, and it's certainly the philosophy of the majority of practicing PT's (despite the fact that they go on to incorrectly call themselves "professionals").
In my experience, those who say that they, "don't see any difference in clinical skills," are generally not qualified to assess any differences in the first place. 20 years of doing strain-counterstrain, or CranioSacral Therapy --- is no experience at all. Neither have any evidence-base for working, and the PT using them may just as well have graduated from PT school last week. 20 years of experience isn't worth ANYTHING if the techniques refined don't work.
It's at this point that most technician-oriented non-professional PT's point to all the patients they see that love them or "get better." To say this is SO frigtening in the sense that the PT clearly has no understanding whatsoever as to how to collect, assess, or generalize outcomes data. He or she is blissfully unaware that the techniques they used may have gotten the patient better --- but perhaps not nearly as fast as they would have had techniques based in evidence-based fact been employed. Such a PT, and there are many out there, aren't the good therapists they think they are, they're self-patronizing, they're sedated. I don't think that such people should be CI's anymore --- all they tend to do is beat the evidence-based clinical scientist out of the newly minted DPT. It's THESE PT's, not the DPT's who should be encouraged to either retire, or upgrade their ENTRY-LEVEL skills to CURRENT ENTRY-LEVEL, which is to say take a course in imaging, another in diagnosis, a thrid in evidence and outcomes, and obtain the t-DPT. Otherwise, we need to "protect our pets" from such "experienced" artistic quacks. It's a good thing that although the current majority within the profession, non-evidence-based, non-scientific quacks are a dying breed.
The problem with DPT education is, like you said, that DPT's have 30% of their education conducted by PT's who are, in general, artistic-oriented and incompotent to asses the clinical abilities of the clinical scientist DPT.
If all the DPT does is stop PT's from wasting 20 years of their life refining the techniques of some BS treatment (like craniosacral therapy, or strain-counterstrain), then it will have a significant, and lasting impact upon the profession of physical therapy.
If you're asking a DPT to "back it up in the clinic" in terms of superior technique, then you may not be an appropriate clinical site for the DPT. You're missing the point.
Finally, your statement that you have, "yet to see anything new and cutting edge that will bring outcomes any different than what I have seen," suggests to me that you're at least 5 to 7 years dated as a physical therapist. If you truly have this opinion, then you've obviously not read any of the mounting information on BWSTT or PWB-GT (1995) or the impact of new basic science research into the embryological basis of autism and why SI may be harmful to most kids with autism (2000). Both have significant and profound impact upon outcomes and prognosis of a very large chunk of patients treated by PT's. DPT's know the preceeding information, and the Sherrington cat studies that started the whole thing (with respect to PWB-GT) . . . if you didn't, then it may be you who shouldn't be treating cats . . .
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should DPT's be called "Doctor"? - June 19, 2002 6:09:00 AM
|
|
|
ScottO
Posts: 31
Joined: May 3, 2002
From: Va
Status: offline
|
Drew,
I was wondering if you have heard anything from Dr. Kukulha on the thesis you had referenced.
Thanks,
Scott O
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should DPT's be called "Doctor"? - June 19, 2002 6:18:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
Scott,
Yes, I have. Sorry to have not gotten back to you. He confirmed what I told you about questioning strain-counterstrain on the basis of some research into the temporal sequencing and firing of gamma and alpha motor neurons. He also said that his thesis wasn't on that particular subject, but rather jumped off of it into another area --- summation. He and A.J. Robinson at Ithaca gave me a list of names that I wrote down, but they're at home.
One of the bigger names, I recall, was Johannsen, but I'm not sure how it's spelled.
Drew
[This message has been edited by Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT (edited June 19, 2002).]
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.109
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> Re: Should DPT's be called "Doctor"? 
