Skip to main content
  • Other Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
Advertisement
JCORE Reference
this is the JCORE Reference site slogan
  • Home
  • Most Read
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
    • Help
  • Patients
  • Reference Site Links
    • View Regions
  • Archive

Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Education: Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future

  1. Jennifer A. Furze,
  2. Carol Jo Tichenor,
  3. Beth E. Fisher,
  4. Gail M. Jensen and
  5. Mary Jane Rapport
  1. J.A. Furze, PT, DPT, PCS, Department of Physical Therapy, School of Pharmacy and Health Professions, Creighton University, 2500 California Pl, Omaha, NE 68178 (USA).
  2. C.J. Tichenor, MA, PT, HFAAOMPT (retired), Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapy Fellowship, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Union City, California.
  3. B.E. Fisher, PT, PhD, FAPTA, Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
  4. G.M. Jensen, PT, PhD, FAPTA, Department of Physical Therapy, Creighton University.
  5. M.J. Rapport, PT, DPT, PhD, FAPTA, Physical Therapy Program, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, Colorado.
  1. Address all correspondence to Dr Furze at: jenniferfurze{at}creighton.edu.

Abstract

The physical therapy profession continues to respond to the complex and changing landscape of health care to meet the needs of patients and the demands of patient care. Consistent with this evolution is the rapid development and expansion of residency and fellowship postprofessional programs. With the interested number of applicants exceeding the number of residency and fellowship slots available, a “critical period” in the educational process is emerging. The purposes of this perspective article are: (1) to analyze the state of residency and fellowship education within the profession, (2) to identify best practice elements from other health professions that are applicable to physical therapy residency and fellowship education, and (3) to propose a working framework grounded in common domains of competence to be used as a platform for dialogue, consistency, and quality across all residency and fellowship programs. Seven domains of competence are proposed to theoretically ground residency and fellowship programs and facilitate a more consistent approach to curricular development and assessment. Although the recent proliferation of residency and fellowship programs attempts to meet the demand of physical therapists seeking advanced educational opportunities, it is imperative that these programs are consistently delivering high-quality education with a common focus on delivering health care in the context of societal needs.

Historically, the physical therapy profession has grown and evolved in response to the dynamic and changing needs of society.1–4 Since the beginning of the profession early in the 20th century, first as reconstruction aides working with wounded veterans and then with patients during the poliomyelitis epidemic under the direction of physicians, physical therapists have responded to the prevailing societal health needs.5 Only later were physical therapists given latitude to practice autonomously, and the profession continues to be challenged to achieve goals of direct access by patients who seek physical therapy as a part of their primary care.6,7 Worthingham said it well: “If physical therapists are to assume a professional role in relationship to other health professions, including medicine, a closer approach to peer equivalence, mutual respect, and recognition of responsibility is essential.”8(p1316) Physical therapists have responded to the continual changes in the health care system and increased societal needs for access to patient care by assuming enhanced clinical responsibilities. These expanded roles include first-contact management, often described as primary care, or patient management that includes diagnosis, referral to other practitioners, and delegation to and supervision of other support professionals. Given these evolving and increased responsibilities, the profession has undergone significant transformation in the educational preparation of physical therapists moving from bachelor's to master's degrees and then to clinical doctoral degree entry-level education.5,9–11

Consistent with the changes in educational preparation of physical therapists has been the creation of clinical specialists and, more recently, the rapid development of residency and fellowship programs in an attempt to meet the need for advanced knowledge and skills in a specialized area of practice. Residency programs are postprofessional, occurring at some point in time after graduation and licensure, with the intention of advancing the physical therapist's knowledge and skills in patient/client management in a specialized area of practice (eg, geriatrics, orthopedics, neurology, pediatrics).12 The Description of Specialty Practice (DSP), developed by the clinical specialty sections of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), is used to guide the residency program curriculum and ensure that the program reflects the entire spectrum of practice analysis in the given specialty area.13,14 In addition to the DSP, the American Board of Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Education (ABPTRFE) has recently developed draft forms of a Description of Residency Practice (DRP) to supplement the DSP and better describe the expectations for residency practice. These documents were created to address issues of program variability and inconsistent learning opportunities for the resident within a given specialty area of clinical practice.15

The structured educational experience must include both didactic and clinical components and emphasize the foundational piece of ongoing mentorship. As defined by ABPTRFE, mentoring is a continual learning experience focused on patient/client management.12,16,17 The majority of mentorship time must occur over direct patient care where the resident, mentor, and patient are present. Mentorship is a critical and essential component of residency and fellowship programs consistent with the development of advanced practitioners in the health professions.12,18 Fellowship programs are designed with greater depth in a subspecialized area of clinical practice and require participants to have already demonstrated a level of knowledge and skill that comes from a completion of specialist certification, residency, or demonstrated level of specialized clinical skill.19 For example, a physical therapist may pursue an orthopedic manual therapy fellowship following completion of an orthopedic residency program or recognition as an Orthopedic Clinical Specialist (OCS). Each Description of Advanced Specialty Practice (DASP) is a validated practice analysis in a specific content area and used to guide the curriculum of fellowship programs.19

The increased demand for advanced specialized clinical knowledge and skills by graduating physical therapist students and practicing clinicians far exceeds the current supply of accredited residency and fellowship programs. During 2013, 167 accredited residency and fellowship programs were required to submit an annual report to ABPTRFE. Programs reported a total of 540 individuals admitted from a pool of 1,428 applicants; the extent to which these applicants had applied to multiple programs is unclear (Kendra L. Harrington, PT, DPT, MS, WSC; email communication; July 2015). Final numbers for 2014 were not yet available at the time this article was written; however, all signs indicate the applicant pool will continue to grow at a rate far exceeding the number of slots offered by accredited programs. These applicant and admission numbers are a driving force in residency and fellowship education. Simultaneously, there is a significant need for the development of standards and models for delivery of curriculum and mentoring practices to support the design and implementation of high-quality programs. With increasing numbers of applicants to a relatively small number of accredited residency and fellowship programs, a “critical period” in residency and fellowship education has emerged.

Currently, little is known about the similarities and differences in programs within and across clinical specialty areas or the depth and quality of the teaching and learning environment that lead to optimal outcomes.20–23 Although the accreditation process requires programs to meet a set of minimal criteria, just as with the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) in professional doctor of physical therapy education, significant variability across programs is possible. Thus, the purposes of this perspective article are: (1) to summarize and analyze the state of residency and fellowship education within the profession, (2) to identify best practice elements from other health professions that are applicable to physical therapy residency and fellowship education, and (3) to propose a foundational set of common domains of competence that would apply to all residency and fellowship programs to guide curricular development and assessment.

History of Residency and Fellowship Education in Physical Therapy

The evolution of residency and fellowship education in physical therapy is similar to the direction taken by other health care education programs that also terminate in a clinical doctoral degree, as shown in Figure 1.24 Medicine, pharmacy, podiatry, and optometry have long professed the need for a training period during which the novice clinician continues to gain knowledge and skill under the auspices of the more experienced clinical expert.25 This training period allows for continued guidance as novice clinicians become competent in the development of their clinical reasoning, judgment, and psychomotor skills.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Residency development across the health professions.

The historical development of residency and fellowship education in physical therapy dates back many years and has been most notable during the past 2 decades since APTA became actively involved in the process.26 The landmark events related to residency development in our profession are discussed in the Appendix, with highlights of key events visually depicted in a time-line format in the eFigure.22,25,26 The first residency and fellowship education programs were credentialed by ABPTRFE in 2000. The terminology to address those programs recognized for meeting a defined set of criteria changed from “credentialed” to “accredited” in 2014 to better reflect the evolution and align with the existing process in other health professions.12,26

Current State of Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Education

As of October 2015, there were 199 accredited residency programs in 11 specialty areas and 41 accredited fellowship programs focused in 9 subspecialty areas, as depicted in Table 1 (Kendra L. Harrington, PT, DPT, MS, WCS; email communication; October 2015).27,28 Significant growth in the number of residency and fellowship programs and graduates has occurred over the past 5 years.20,28 In 2009, there were 81 accredited programs and then 213 in 2014, representing a 163% increase (Kendra L. Harrington, PT, DPT, MS, WCS; email communication; October 2015). There has been unequal geographic distribution of residency and fellowship programs from the time they were first accredited until more recently. Initially, the East Coast and West Coast had strongholds in the number of residency and fellowship programs. These educational programs were concentrated in urban areas and associated with health maintenance organizations,20 private practice settings, and selected universities that were the “early adopters” of the value of residency education. However, over the past several years, a much broader distribution of programs has emerged across the United States. This geographic spread has been the result of the growing number of residencies and fellowships.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Number of Residency and Fellowship Programs (as of October 2015)

Closer examination of the list of accredited programs reveals that there is indeed geographic distribution in the Northeast, South, West, and Midwest areas of the United States.27,28 Despite this extensive growth in number of programs and geographical distribution, an unequal allocation of specialty and subspecialty programs exists. As shown in Table 1, the largest total number of programs are in the area of orthopedics, including both orthopedic residency programs and orthopedic manual physical therapy fellowships. Responding to societal needs and workforce distribution continues to be an important consideration for the profession as additional residency and fellowship programs are developed. For example, should the profession be concerned about developing more geriatric residencies given the aging population in the United States?4 If residency programs are an important component of advancing practice for physical therapists and meeting societal needs, a broader distribution of residency programs in all specialty areas is critical.4,20

As the profession continues to evolve, pioneers within physical therapy have identified the need to explore the benefits and clinical outcomes of residency and fellowship education.20,22,23 More than 15 years ago, Tichenor and colleagues challenged the profession to evaluate the patient outcomes of residency- and fellowship-educated physical therapists versus nonresidency- and fellowship-educated physical therapists in an effort to support the financial sustainability of these programs to employers.22,23 Recently, the first published study to address this comparison showed differences in patient outcomes between therapists who had undergone fellowship training compared with residents and those without formal postprofessional training. In the study by Rodeghero et al,29 patient outcomes were significantly better when the intervention was provided by fellowship-trained as compared with residency-trained or nonresidency-trained physical therapists. Given the fact that many residents enter residency education as new graduates of doctor of physical therapy programs, it should not be surprising that the residents in the study sample were younger and had less experience than their fellowship-trained or nonresidency-trained counterparts. Thus, the reasons for these differences could be attributed to the residents having a lack of experience with varied patient presentations, resulting in limited clinical expertise and a reduction in overall patient outcomes.30 A shortcoming of recent research in residency/fellowship education is the sole focus on patient outcomes without consideration of other important contextual factors that influence learning and ultimately clinical outcomes, including the clinician's continued professional development and emerging clinical expertise.

In another study comparing nonpatient care skills, including leadership abilities and professional development, graduates of residency programs demonstrated advanced leadership and other professional skills and earned a higher income compared with nonresidency-trained graduates.31 Graduate outcomes research in residency and fellowship education needs to take a broader view of the contextual factors that are critical components of the teaching and learning environment, as these factors also may contribute to enhanced clinical outcomes through the development of advanced clinical reasoning skills, effective clinical practice, and patient-centered care. For example, we need to know more about the mentor characteristics and teaching strategies used within residency and fellowship programs that may lead to positive patient engagement and satisfaction. We know that clinical experience grounded in reflective practice is an important component of the ongoing development of expertise.32–36 As with other professions where clinical outcomes are dependent on another person for human improvement, there is inherent complexity involved in this process.

Physical therapy is similar to other caring professions in that we rely on the patient or client to engage in activities to enhance his or her human performance.4,37 This is where the clinical reasoning skills of the therapist in understanding the patient's life context are so critical. There is strong evidence across professions that clinicians' ability to fully understand these important patient contextual elements is an essential component of their clinical reasoning process central to developing expertise.38–42 The physical therapy profession needs to consider the outcomes of residents' and fellows' leadership and professional skills, teaching and learning strategies, and curriculum competencies, including integration of the patient's life factors into the clinical reasoning process. These factors should be considered in combination with patient outcome measures to determine the educational effectiveness of residency and fellowship programs.30,31,34

Thus far, the profession has placed much more focus on the development of programmatic structure through specific accreditation standards and resource materials (eg, mentoring and caseload requirements, length of programs) to improve the quality of programs rather than advocating for investigations exploring critical research questions in residency and fellowship education.14 Kulig argued that the profession can enhance the quality and integrity of these residency educational programs by grounding them in clinical research with established partnerships or collaborations with academic institutions to ensure appropriate learning experiences expected of this advanced training.20 We believe there are multiple opportunities for research in residency and fellowship education that need to be directed at the exploration of the teaching and learning environment that is central to the mentorship process.

Lessons From the Health Professions

Although residency and fellowship education is still considered to be in its infancy within physical therapy, medicine and pharmacy have used this model of postprofessional education to further the education and training of specialists within specific disciplines for many decades. Medicine first required residency as part of advanced training in the early 1900s (Fig. 1). The professions of pharmacy, dentistry, psychology, and optometry followed the medical model by offering residency training programs, although not requiring residency as part of entry-level professional education, as had been mandated by medicine.25 All of these professions have embraced residency as an important component of continued professional development and intentional practice-based learning that offers key considerations for physical therapy. Medicine established a formal, national process for accreditation of residency programs. The oversight organization is the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), established in 1981, replacing earlier oversight by the Liaison Committee for Graduate Medical Education. The ACGME is an independent accrediting organization with separate review committees for each of 130 specialty and subspecialty areas.43

As the most mature profession with residency education, medicine provides us with a structure and processes for consideration. During the late 1990s, in response to public demand for improved patient safety, reduced medical errors, and increased responsibility for residency training, the ACGME developed the Outcomes Project, focusing on outcomes-based assessment as a foundation for medical residency curricular design and assessment.44–46 During this movement, residency program directors were asked to objectively document how their residents achieved proficiency in 8 general domains of competence (Tab. 2).47 Prior to the outcomes movement, assessment of medical residency education was primarily centered on time-based training. In this time-dependent model, once the resident had completed 2 years of educational (clinical and didactic) training, he or she was deemed “fit for practice.” This shift in curricular design and assessment from solely time-based training toward demonstration of competence with a timed component, designated as the “Flexnerian revolution of the 21st century,”48 was aimed at enhancing the medical profession's ability to verify that graduates of residency programs are competent.47–50

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education General Competency Domains in Medical Residency Education

Since the inception of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965, the federal government has provided significant dollars to fund graduate medical education, including residency and fellowship programs.51 As an accountability measure for this public funding, residents must demonstrate the ability to deliver safe and effective patient care.48 Competency domains are considered overarching elements critical to professional practice, and competencies are considered broad and general qualities of a professional. The difficulty with assessing such an expansive concept is the tendency to reduce this general idea into a long list of activities or skills that are observable in a clinical setting but in isolation may not accurately represent the competency.52 Given this challenge, entrustable professional activities (EPAs), as defined in Table 3,52–54 have been recognized as the linkage between competencies and specific performance-based actions for demonstrating competence in patient care.55–57 Entrustable professional activities are independently executable, observable, and measurable and, therefore, can function as a quantifiable outcome that can aid in the assessment of the resident.52,54 To better understand the terminology described in this article, definitions, concepts, and specific examples of domains of competence, competency, and EPAs are presented in Table 3.52–54

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3.

Glossary of Terms

Medicine is actively working on implementing an outcomes-based competency framework in residency education to guide curricular development and assessment and shift away from time-based, checklist-type evaluations.47,52,54 Eight core competency domains—patient care, knowledge for practice, interprofessional collaboration, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, practice-based learning and improvement, systems-based practice, and personal and professional development—cross all specialty areas in graduate medical education, the equivalent of residency and fellowship education in physical therapy.47,54 In addition to these domains of competence, medicine has developed correlating EPAs that serve as objective and measurable outcomes for the purpose of assessment.54 The medical profession has been aware of the difficult transition between undergraduate school and medical school, medical school and residency, and residency and fellowship education. Thus, our colleagues from medical education are using specific panels of experts to evaluate learning over the continuum of time, from undergraduate medical education to residency and fellowship training, to determine core behaviors that all learners must demonstrate prior to entering each phase of education.54

Physical therapy can benefit from communication across residency and fellowship programs and clinical specialties that explore the use of common values and core competencies that cross all specialty areas. Understanding more about these common values and core competencies can be helpful in guiding assessment. Also, as we learn and apply concepts from the other health professions to our own physical therapy competency framework, we must recognize the unique characteristics that differentiate the health professions from one another. In particular, physical therapy emphasizes the human movement and the movement system as an important component of health, whereas the other professions focus on different anatomical systems and aspects in the health care process.

Although both medicine and physical therapy have a similar purpose and outcome of residency education, that is, advanced knowledge and skills in a specialized field of training, significant differences exist between the 2 professions.12,14,54 Medicine has a long-standing public recognition and expectation that physicians complete a residency as part of their mandatory entry into clinical practice. Few avenues exist for physicians to engage in clinical practice without residency. In contrast, in physical therapy, residency education has emerged as an entirely elective or optional route toward clinical specialization. Physical therapy, unlike medicine, does not benefit from government funding of medical residency and fellowship training following medical licensure.58 For physical therapy, the lack of federally funded financial support for residency is an obvious practical deterrent for new graduates to pursue an extended educational experience. Other confounding variables that affect a physical therapist's decision to pursue postgraduate training include student debt after professional education and the realization that salaries have not demonstrated growth commensurate with specialization.

The physical therapy profession also faces both short-term and long-term strategic decisions about how to best approach the route to clinical specialization. The overarching question of whether there will be one path, or “gold standard,” to achieve clinical specialization (ie, residency and fellowship training) or, as currently exists, multiple pathways that can lead to American Board of Physical Therapy Specialties (ABPTS) board certification in an area of specialization remains unanswered. The options have allowed for a variety of courses, certifications, and educational opportunities, often with inconsistent standards. Until the physical therapy profession adopts the educational progression of professional degree (doctor of physical therapy) through residency and fellowship as the expected route to advance from entry-level novice physical therapist to highly competent, specialized clinician, we will not see similar investment by universities and medical centers, or government funding support for development of residency and fellowship programs. Physical therapy may not be ready for such a path, however, recognizing the value of this postprofessional education will only be successful if the profession strives to improve quality by making timely, strategic educational decisions. We must decide for ourselves and invest now in developing educational processes that will build quality and consistency across residency and fellowship programs.

A Working Framework for Physical Therapy: Future Considerations

A Residency and Fellowship Research Conclave was held in November 2013 to discuss educational strategic priorities for residency and fellowship research. Given the recent rapid expansion of residency and fellowship programs, the limited evidence of the effectiveness of this type of training, and the extensive competency frameworks for postprofessional education that exist, a group of interested educators and clinicians held a meeting to engage in dialogue about the future of residency and fellowship education. On a voluntary basis, 13 experts in residency and fellowship education from across the country representing orthopedics, pediatrics, geriatrics, neurology, manual therapy, and the ABPTRFE councils participated in the 2-day brainstorming conclave. When evaluating the educational frameworks used in residency education pathways in other health professions, a discussion concerning the vital elements of physical therapy residency and fellowship ensued.

There was agreement among all participants that a common, shared foundational platform of competencies or expectations is essential in any educational program design. The intention is not to be prescriptive but to allow for important shared understandings that are essential for ensuring consistency in standards for performance assessment. The group grappled with this question as a central focus: “How could common domains of competence across all physical therapy residency and fellowship programs drive the quality of current and future programs to ensure that the profession strategically develops programs that will meet the needs of society?” Instituting common competency-based domains for all physical therapy residencies with objective and measurable outcomes is not a trivial issue. The complex nature of competencies reflected in high-level syntheses of more operationally measurable learning objectives makes the task of developing and establishing common competencies challenging. Unlike residency programs in medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy, which have identified core competency domains across all specialty areas, physical therapy residency and fellowship programs have separate clinical competency statements and practice expectations seated within the DSP or DASP.59–62 These competency documents, developed from a practice analysis conducted by each specialty area, guide curriculum, clinical practice breadth, components of advanced practice, and assessment for the residents and fellows in that specialty. These documents share some similarities in practice dimensions and terminology but these elements rapidly become outdated over the 10-year period when they are typically in place.

Communication between APTA specialty sections does occur at the level of the ABPTS, but the specialty sections also have considerable autonomy, especially in the area of residency and fellowship education. Variable communication occurs between residency and fellowship programs in the same specialty area and across specialty areas. The ABPTRFE has begun to address this concern by the recent drafting of the DRP released to program directors.15 These documents may contribute to more consistency across programs within the same specialty area.

Proposed Common Domains of Competence in Physical Therapy

When evaluating each DSP, there are significant differences in terms of format and structure highlighted by examples from geriatrics and pediatrics.13,63 However, there are also common areas of competencies that can be seen across the specialty areas. Each of the DSPs addresses the following major areas: practice dimensions, professional responsibilities, and knowledge areas and procedures expected of a specialist in the defined area.13,63 Although there may not be perfect parallels, these areas of commonality could be viewed as the emerging foundation for shared competency domains across specialty areas. A major focus and outcome of the 2013 Residency and Fellowship Research Conclave was a working framework of 7 common competency domains for physical therapy residency and fellowship education (Fig. 2): (1) professionalism, (2) communication, (3) knowledge for practice, (4) clinical reasoning, (5) clinical skills, (6) inquiry skills, and (7) systems-based practice. As shown in Table 4, examples from the pediatric and geriatric DSPs have been used to illustrate how existing DSP documents may align with these proposed domains of competence in residency and fellowship education. Similarities in wording already exist in DSP documents, but agreement in the choice and use of language needs to be reached and integrated into common terminology. In Table 4, we also present examples of competency statements from EPAs of medical residency education to again demonstrate similarities in expectations that can make the development of core competencies achievable for physical therapy.54,55

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Physical therapy proposed domains of competence.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4.

Examples of Outcomes and Competencies Within Current Physical Therapy DSP Documentsa

Implications

The growth of clinical specialization, advanced practice competencies, and residency and fellowship programs in the profession of physical therapy affords us the opportunity to be very intentional about building a continuum of learning that is developmental, robust, and focused on meeting our moral obligation to address the critical needs of society.4

Given the lack of a consensus-based shared framework of competencies within physical therapy residency and fellowship education to date, there continues to be potential for large variation of quality among accredited programs. Although the specialty areas will have some inherent variation given the differences in the health conditions and patient populations seen, there is an opportunity to combine resources with a shared platform of competencies for curriculum design.

The proposed domains of competence in this article may serve to theoretically ground all residency and fellowship programs and allow for more consistent assessment of these programs. This is not a “one size fits all” approach but rather an acknowledgment that a commonality, particularly around movement and function, exists across residency and fellowship education that can lay the foundation for all programs. As a profession, we have not yet fully embraced the concept of residency and fellowship education as the sole route for specialization. We may decide never to make this an exclusive path. The goal of providing “best practice” and ensuring optimal outcomes for our patients should always be paramount and drives us to establish a clear road map for accountability. This map should be grounded in common domains of competence with measurable objectives as the basis of residency and fellowship curricula and evaluation.44

Ensuring Quality Standards

Several leaders in the profession have made clarion calls for transformative changes in physical therapy education at all levels.4,20,23,64–67 These respected leaders have challenged the profession to work toward standardizing curricular competencies in physical therapy professional programs, intentionally developing the continuum of professional learning from undergraduate to professional education to postprofessional education, and addressing the changing landscape of societal need.4,20,23,64–67 As professionals, we must be willing to assume the duties and obligations consistent with a doctoring profession.4,20,23,64–67 A similar call for “standardization” is occurring in health care organizations to improve clinical effectiveness, safety, care experience for the patient, efficient use of resources, and equitable care and population health.68 Patients want and expect a consistent care experience no matter where they receive their care within a health care system. The development of domains of competence for physical therapy residency and fellowship programs can move us toward the standardization and “consistency of optimal practice” that health care delivery demands.69 Indeed, the challenge of creating, implementing, and measuring competence becomes even greater as we seek to establish a shared framework across the trajectory from professional (entry level) to postprofessional (residency and fellowship) education. We also must realize that a shared competency framework will not be without challenge, as well as opportunity, as a recent article in medical education referred to the competencies for medical residents—“Milestones or Millstones?”70 A shared framework is an essential blueprint for consistency between curriculum and assessment of performance, but tension will remain in finding the right balance between assessment of more procedural competencies and the more contextual-bound qualities necessary for competent practice.70,71

Next Steps: Is Now the Time?

The profession of physical therapy must continue to promote high-quality residency and fellowship curricula by preparing graduates in the core domains of competence. As medicine has already recognized, there is a need to focus on the developmental trajectory across professional and postprofessional education. A shared competency framework that begins in professional education and extends in postprofessional education will help facilitate learners at the highest levels of education and competence. We believe now is the time to evaluate and come to consensus on core domains of competence along the educational continuum. By raising our own bar toward a consistent level of curriculum development and assessment in residency and fellowship education programs, we will shape our profession to a place where and at a time when physical therapists are ready and prepared to meet changing societal needs. The ABPTRFE has recently convened an assessment task force to develop a standardized assessment tool for residency and fellowship education. This is an initial and essential positive strategic step forward.

Conclusion

The profession is well positioned to take a critical reflective look at where we are, what we can learn from others, and how to best meet the needs of the patients and communities we serve. Growth of residency and fellowship programs is not nearly keeping pace with the demand. It is time to acknowledge the need for advancing residency and fellowship education both in number of programs and in an approach of consistency based on common domains of competence. We propose 7 domains of competence—professionalism, communication, knowledge for practice, clinical reasoning, clinical skills, inquiry skills, and systems-based practice—as a working framework for all residency and fellowship programs. We believe that agreement on key domains of competence is necessary if we expect high levels of clinical performance leading to recognized specialization through postprofessional residency and fellowship education. The competencies also provide a foundation for learning across the educational trajectory, beginning in professional education and extending into postprofessional education. This framework serves as a basis for physical therapists and the profession of physical therapy to meet the expectations of high-quality care as we transform society through movement and function.

Appendix.

Appendix.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Appendix.

History of Residency and Fellowship Education

Footnotes

  • All authors provided concept/idea/project design, writing, and review of manuscript before submission. Dr Furze provided project management.

  • The authors acknowledge the Residency and Fellowship Research Conclave participants who contributed to the concepts in the manuscript, including, Diane D. Allen, J.B. Barr, Lisa Black, Matt Briggs, Nicole Christensen, Terry Ellis, Joseph Farrell, Judy Gale, Greg Hartley, Becky Olson-Kellogg, Raine Osborne, Erica Sigman, and Julie Whitman.

  • Received August 23, 2015.
  • Accepted December 6, 2015.
  • © 2016 American Physical Therapy Association

References

    1. Scully R,
    2. Barnes M
    1. Pinkston D
    . Evolution of the practice of physical therapy in the United States. In: Scully R, Barnes M, eds. Physical Therapy. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott Co; 1989:2–30.
    1. Murphy W
    . Healing the Generations: A History of Physical Therapy and the American Physical Therapy Association. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association; 1995.
    1. Moffat M
    . The 1996 APTA Presidential Address: Three quarters of a century of healing the generations. Phys Ther. 1996:76:1242–1252.
    1. Jensen GM
    . Forty-Second Mary McMillan Lecture: Learning what matters most. Phys Ther. 2011; 91:1674–1689.
    1. Plack MM,
    2. Wong CK
    . The evolution of the doctorate of physical therapy: moving beyond the controversy. J Phys Ther Educ. 2002;16:48–59.
    1. Taylor TK,
    2. Domholdt E
    . Legislative change to permit direct access to physical therapy services: a study of process and content issues. Phys Ther. 1991;71:382–389.
    1. Sullivan KJ,
    2. Wallace JG,
    3. O'Neil ME,
    4. et al
    . A vision for society: physical therapy as partners in the national health agenda. Phys Ther. 2011;91:1664–1672.
    1. Worthingham CA
    . Study of basic physical therapy education, VI: findings of the study in relation to trends in patient care and education. Phys Ther. 1970;50:1315–1332.
    1. Threlkeld AJ,
    2. Jensen GM,
    3. Royeen CB
    . The clinical doctorate: a framework for analysis in physical therapist education. Phys Ther. 1999;79:567–581.
    1. Rapport MJ,
    2. Stelzner D,
    3. Rodriguez J
    . The doctor of physical therapy degree: a new curriculum for a new degree. Phys Disabil Educ Relat Serv. 2007;26:63–76.
  1. American Physical Therapy Association. Vision Statement for the Physical Therapy Profession. Available at: http://www.apta.org/Vision/. Accessed June 11, 2015.
  2. American Board of Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Education. Mentoring Resource Manual. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association; 2014.
  3. American Physical Therapy Association, Section on Pediatrics. Pediatric Physical Therapy: Description of Specialty Practice. Alexandria, VA: American Board of Physical Therapy Specialties; 2011.
  4. American Board of Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Education. Evaluative Criteria for Residency and Fellowship Programs. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association; 2014.
  5. American Board of Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Education. Description of Residency Practice (Neurology). Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association. In press.
    1. Straus SH,
    2. Johnson MO,
    3. Marquez C,
    4. Feldman MD
    . Characteristics of successful and failed mentoring relationships: a qualitative study across two academic health centers. Acad Med. 2013;88:82–89.
    1. Atkinson HL,
    2. Nixon-Cave K
    . A tool for clinical reasoning and reflection using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework and patient management model. Phys Ther. 2011;91:416–430.
    1. Kashiwagi DT,
    2. Varkey P,
    3. Cook DA
    . Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2013:88;1029–1037.
  6. American Board of Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Education. Fellowship Programs Overview. Available at: http://www.abptrfe.org/FellowshipPrograms/Overview/. Accessed June 11, 2015.
    1. Kulig K
    . 18th John H.P. Maley Lecture: Residency education in every town: is it just so simple? Phys Ther. 2014; 94:151–161.
    1. Hartley G
    . Postgraudate residency training for physical therapists: its role in contemporary practice. HPA Resource. 2006;6:1–4.
    1. Smith KL,
    2. Tichenor CJ,
    3. Schroeder M
    . Orthopedic residency training: a survey of the graduates' perspective. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1999;29;635–655.
    1. Tichenor CJ
    . Clinical residency: another turning point for our profession? PT Magazine. 1995;3:49.
    1. Furze JA,
    2. Jensen GM,
    3. Rapport MJ,
    4. et al
    . Domains of Professional Competence: Looking Across the Educational Continuum. Session Presentation. American Physical Therapy Association Combined Sections Meeting; February 24, 2015; Indianapolis, Indiana.
    1. Jensen GM,
    2. Mostrom E
    1. Barr JB,
    2. Tichenor CJ
    . Post-professional clinical residency and fellowship education. In: Jensen GM, Mostrom E, eds. Handbook of Teaching and Learning for Physical Therapists. 3rd ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier; 2013:259–273.
  7. American Board of Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Education. Accreditation Handbook. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association; 2014.
  8. American Board of Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Education. Directory of Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Programs. Available at: http://www.abptrfe.org/DirectoryofPrograms/. Accessed October 21, 2015.
  9. American Board of Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Education. Clinical Residency & Fellowship Programs Growth Chart. Available at: http://www.abptrfe.org/home.aspx. Accessed October 21, 2015.
    1. Rodeghero J,
    2. Ying Chih W,
    3. Flynn T,
    4. et al
    . The impact of physical therapy residency or fellowship education on clinical outcomes for patients with musculoskeletal conditions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45:86–96.
    1. Robertson EK,
    2. Tichenor CJ
    . Postprofessional cartography in physical therapy: charting a pathway for residency and fellowship training. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45:57–60.
    1. Jones S,
    2. Bellah C,
    3. Godges J
    . A comparison of professional development and leadership activities between graduates and non-graduates of physical therapist clinical residency programs. J Phys Ther Educ. 2008;22:85–88.
    1. Jensen GM,
    2. Gwyer J,
    3. Shepard K,
    4. Hack LM
    . Expert practice in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2000;80:28–43.
    1. Benner P
    . From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2001.
    1. Wainwright SF,
    2. Shepard K,
    3. Harman LB,
    4. Stephens J
    . Novice and experienced physical therapist clinicians: a comparison of how reflection is used to inform the clinical decision-making process. Phys Ther. 2010;90:75–88.
    1. Jensen GM,
    2. Gwyer J,
    3. Hack LM,
    4. Shepard KF
    1. Jensen GM,
    2. Gwyer J,
    3. Hack LM,
    4. Shepard KF
    . Expert practice in physical therapy. In: Jensen GM, Gwyer J, Hack LM, Shepard KF, eds. Expertise in Physical Therapy Practice. 2nd ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier, 2007:145–169.
    1. Ericsson KA
    . Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: a general overview. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15;988–994.
    1. Nisan M,
    2. Schremer O
    1. Cohen DK
    . Professions of human improvement: predicaments of teaching. In: Nisan M, Schremer O, eds. Educational Deliberations. Jerusalem, Israel: Keter Publishers; 2005.
    1. Higgs J,
    2. Jones MA,
    3. Loftus S,
    4. Christensen N
    1. Fish D,
    2. Higgs J
    . The context for clinical decision making in the 21st century. In: Higgs J, Jones MA, Loftus S, Christensen N, eds. Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2008:25–29.
    1. Edwards I,
    2. Jones M,
    3. Carr J,
    4. et al
    . Clinical reasoning strategies in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2004;84:312–330.
    1. Furze JA,
    2. Nelson K,
    3. O'Hare M,
    4. et al
    . Describing the clinical reasoning process: application of a model of enablement to a pediatric case. Physiother Theory Pract. 2013;29:222–331.
    1. Nikipoulou-Smyrni P,
    2. Nikopoulos C
    . A new integrated model of clinical reasoning: development, description, and preliminary assessment in patients with stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:1129–1138.
    1. Dunning SJ,
    2. Artino AR,
    3. Schuwirth L,
    4. Van der Vleuten C
    . Clarifying assumptions to enhance our understanding and assessment of clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 2013;88:442–448.
  10. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. About ACGME. Available at: https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/tabid/116/About.aspx. Accessed on July 13, 2015.
    1. Lowry BN,
    2. Vansaghi LM,
    3. Rigler SK,
    4. Stites SW
    . Applying the milestones in an internal medicine residency program curriculum: a foundation for outcomes-based learner assessment under the next accreditation system. Acad Med. 2013;88:1665–1669.
    1. Nasca TJ,
    2. Philibert I,
    3. Brigham T,
    4. Flynn TC
    . The next GME accreditation system: rationale and benefits. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1051–1056.
    1. Green ML,
    2. Aagaard EM,
    3. Caverzagie KJ,
    4. et al
    . Charting the road to competence: developmental milestones for internal medicine residency training. J Grad Med Educ. 2009;1:5–20.
    1. Englander R,
    2. Cameron T,
    3. Ballard AJ,
    4. et al
    . Toward a common taxonomy of competency domains for the health professions and competencies for physicians. Acad Med. 2013;88:1088–1094.
    1. Carraccio C,
    2. Wolfsthal SD,
    3. Englander R,
    4. et al
    . Shifting paradigms: from Flexner to competencies. Acad Med. 2002;77:361–367.
    1. Carraccio C,
    2. Englander R
    . From Flexner to competencies: reflections on a decade and the journey ahead. Acad Med. 2013;88:1067–1073.
  11. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Milestones. Available at: http://www.acgme.org/What-We-Do/Accreditation/Milestones/Overview. Accessed July 13, 2015.
    1. Ludmerer KM
    . Let Me Heal. The Opportunity to Preserve Excellence in American Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2014.
    1. ten Cate O,
    2. Scheele F
    . Competency-based postgraduate training: can we bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice? Acad Med. 2007;82:542–547.
    1. Soanes C,
    2. Stevenson A
    , eds. Oxford Dictionary of English. 2nd rev ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2005.
  12. Association of American Medical Colleges. Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency: Curriculum Developers' Guide. Available at: https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Core%20EPA%20Curriculum%20Dev%20Guide.pdf. Published 2014. Accessed July 15, 2015.
    1. ten Cate O
    . Enstrustability of professional activities and competency-based training. Med Educ. 2005;39:1176–1177.
    1. ten Cate O
    . Trust, competence and the supervisor's role in postgraduate training. BMJ. 2006;333:748–751.
    1. Rapport MJ,
    2. Furze JA,
    3. Martin K,
    4. et al
    . Essential competencies in entry-level pediatric physical therapy. Ped Phys Ther. 2014;26:7–18.
    1. McCarthy M
    . US panel calls for sweeping changes to funding of graduate medical education. BMJ. 2014;349:g4968.
    1. Badner V,
    2. Ahlurelia KP,
    3. Murrman MK,
    4. et al
    . A competency-based framework for training in advanced dental education. J Dent Educ. 2010;74:130–139.
    1. Ziend CS,
    2. Blagg JD,
    3. Amato MG,
    4. Jacobson S
    . Incorporation of Institute of Medicine competency recommendations within doctor of pharmacy curricula. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012;76:1–7.
  13. The Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland. Core Competency Framework for Pharmacists. Available at: http://www.thepsi.ie/Libraries/Pharmacy_Practice/PSI_Core_Comp_Framework_Web_Version_Final.sflb.ashx. Published 2013. Accessed July 15, 2015.
    1. Srinivasan M,
    2. Li ST,
    3. Meyers F,
    4. et al
    . Teaching as a competency: competencies for medical educators. Acad Med. 2011;86:1211–1220.
  14. American Physical Therapy Association, Section on Geriatrics. Geriatric Physical Therapy: Description of Specialty Practice. Alexandria, VA: American Board of Physical Therapy Specialties; 2009.
    1. Gordon J
    . Forty-Fifth Mary McMillan Lecture: If greatness is a goal…. Phys Ther. 2014;94:1518–1530.
    1. Shepard KF
    . Thirty-Eighth Mary McMillan Lecture: Are you waving or drowning? Phys Ther. 2007;87:1543–1554.
    1. Jette AM
    . Forty-Third Mary McMillan Lecture: Face into the storm. Phys Ther. 2012;92:1221–1229.
    1. Purtillo RB
    . Thirty-First Mary McMillan Lecture: A time to harvest, a time to sow: ethics for a shifting landscape. Phys Ther. 2000;80:1112–1119.
    1. Schilling L,
    2. Chase A,
    3. Kehrli S,
    4. et al
    . Kaiser Permanente's performance improvement system, part 1: from benchmarking to executing on strategic priorities. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36:484–498.
    1. Chassin MR,
    2. Galvin RW
    ; Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. The urgent need to improve health care quality. JAMA. 1998;280:1000–1005.
    1. Norman G,
    2. Norcini J,
    3. Bordage G
    . Competency-based education: milestones or millstones? J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6:1–6.
    1. ten Cate O,
    2. Billett S
    . Competency-based medical education: origins, perspectives and potentialities. Med Educ. 2014;48:325–332.
    1. Long TM,
    2. Sippel K
    . A pediatric clinical residency. PT Magazine. 1995;3(1):56–63.
  15. Standards for Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy Residency Training. Biloxi, MS: American Academy of Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapists; 1999.
  16. American Physical Therapy Association Committee on Clinical Residency Program Credentialing. Postprofessional Clinical Residency Program Credentialing Application and Instructions. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association; 1998.
  17. American Board of Physical Therapy Residency and Fellowship Education. Application for Credentialing of Residency and Fellowship Programs. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association Residency and Fellowship Credentialing; 2010.

Footer Menu 1

  • menu 1 item 1
  • menu 1 item 2
  • menu 1 item 3
  • menu 1 item 4

Footer Menu 2

  • menu 2 item 1
  • menu 2 item 2
  • menu 2 item 3
  • menu 2 item 4

Footer Menu 3

  • menu 3 item 1
  • menu 3 item 2
  • menu 3 item 3
  • menu 3 item 4

Footer Menu 4

  • menu 4 item 1
  • menu 4 item 2
  • menu 4 item 3
  • menu 4 item 4
footer second
footer first
Copyright © 2013 The HighWire JCore Reference Site | Print ISSN: 0123-4567 | Online ISSN: 1123-4567
advertisement bottom
Advertisement Top