Interprofessional Team Members' Knowledge and Perceptions of Physical Therapist Education and Practice

Emma G. Hintz, Alyson P. Tisthammer, Sara E. North
{"title":"Interprofessional Team Members' Knowledge and Perceptions of Physical Therapist Education and Practice","authors":"Emma G. Hintz, Alyson P. Tisthammer, Sara E. North","doi":"10.1097/jte.0000000000000311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. High-quality patient care requires that providers understand and optimize each health care team member's roles and responsibilities. Review of Literature. The purpose of this paper was to examine the contemporary knowledge and perceptions of physical therapist (PT) practice and education held by advanced practice interprofessional (IP) team members, including physicians, physician assistants (PAs), and advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). Subjects. Physicians, PAs, and APRNs licensed in the state of Minnesota. Methods. Eligible individuals were invited to participate in an online survey assessing understanding of PT practice and education. Descriptive and nonparametric statistical analyses were used to evaluate respondent demographics, practice characteristics, and perceptions and knowledge of PT education and practice. Results. Survey responses were analyzed from 442 respondents including 210 APRNs, 182 physicians, 48 PAs, and 2 clinicians of unknown profession. Results demonstrated that most referring providers did not learn about physical therapy during their academic or posttraining education. Those who interacted with PTs more frequently perceived greater benefit for their patients, tended to refer to PTs more often, and demonstrated greater knowledge of PT practice. Poorly understood areas of PT practice and education included PT practice settings, specialties, salary, level of education, and the ability to see patients through direct access. Discussion and Conclusion. Multiple areas of poor provider knowledge regarding PT education and practice were identified; many unchanged from the literature in the 1980s. Three main areas of growth were identified from which actionable recommendations are made: increase IP interactions with PTs, address areas of poor understanding of PT education and scope, and maximize shifting perceptions of PTs through education and advocacy. This paper illustrates that PT education and practice are not well understood by referring providers, posing a threat to IP collaboration. A lack of collaboration may hinder patient and system outcomes because of suboptimal provider utilization.","PeriodicalId":91351,"journal":{"name":"Journal, physical therapy education","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal, physical therapy education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/jte.0000000000000311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. High-quality patient care requires that providers understand and optimize each health care team member's roles and responsibilities. Review of Literature. The purpose of this paper was to examine the contemporary knowledge and perceptions of physical therapist (PT) practice and education held by advanced practice interprofessional (IP) team members, including physicians, physician assistants (PAs), and advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). Subjects. Physicians, PAs, and APRNs licensed in the state of Minnesota. Methods. Eligible individuals were invited to participate in an online survey assessing understanding of PT practice and education. Descriptive and nonparametric statistical analyses were used to evaluate respondent demographics, practice characteristics, and perceptions and knowledge of PT education and practice. Results. Survey responses were analyzed from 442 respondents including 210 APRNs, 182 physicians, 48 PAs, and 2 clinicians of unknown profession. Results demonstrated that most referring providers did not learn about physical therapy during their academic or posttraining education. Those who interacted with PTs more frequently perceived greater benefit for their patients, tended to refer to PTs more often, and demonstrated greater knowledge of PT practice. Poorly understood areas of PT practice and education included PT practice settings, specialties, salary, level of education, and the ability to see patients through direct access. Discussion and Conclusion. Multiple areas of poor provider knowledge regarding PT education and practice were identified; many unchanged from the literature in the 1980s. Three main areas of growth were identified from which actionable recommendations are made: increase IP interactions with PTs, address areas of poor understanding of PT education and scope, and maximize shifting perceptions of PTs through education and advocacy. This paper illustrates that PT education and practice are not well understood by referring providers, posing a threat to IP collaboration. A lack of collaboration may hinder patient and system outcomes because of suboptimal provider utilization.
跨专业团队成员对物理治疗师教育与实践的知识与认知
介绍。高质量的患者护理要求提供者了解并优化每个医疗保健团队成员的角色和责任。文献回顾。本研究旨在探讨包括医师、医师助理(PAs)和高级执业注册护士(APRNs)在内的高级执业跨专业(IP)团队成员对物理治疗师(PT)执业和教育的当代知识和认知。科目。在明尼苏达州获得执照的内科医生、执业医师和注册护士。方法。符合条件的个人被邀请参加一项在线调查,评估对PT实践和教育的理解。使用描述性和非参数统计分析来评估被调查者的人口统计特征、实践特征以及对PT教育和实践的认知和知识。结果。调查分析了442名受访者的回复,其中包括210名APRNs、182名内科医生、48名PAs和2名职业不明的临床医生。结果表明,大多数转诊提供者在其学术或培训后教育期间没有学习过物理治疗。那些与PT互动更频繁的人认为对他们的病人更有好处,倾向于更频繁地参考PT,并表现出更多的PT实践知识。对PT实践和教育知之甚少的领域包括PT实践环境、专业、工资、教育水平和通过直接访问看到患者的能力。讨论与结论。确定了有关PT教育和实践的提供者知识贫乏的多个领域;许多与20世纪80年代的文学作品一样。确定了三个主要的增长领域,并从中提出了可行的建议:增加知识产权与PT的互动,解决对PT教育和范围了解不足的领域,并通过教育和宣传最大限度地改变对PT的看法。本文表明,通过转诊提供者,PT教育和实践没有得到很好的理解,这对知识产权合作构成了威胁。缺乏合作可能会阻碍患者和系统的结果,因为次优的提供者利用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信