Transcript New Commissioner Orientation

Education Summit
Findings and
Recommendations
April 8-9, 2005
New Orleans, Louisiana
Executive Summary
Education Summit – Forecasting the Future


More than 30 Subject Matter Experts gathered in New Orleans, LA
April 8-9, 2005 to study the current state of O&P education and to
make recommendations for future direction. The conference was
conducted as a collaborative effort of the National Commission on
Orthotic and Prosthetic Education (NCOPE) and the American
Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists (The Academy). This
meeting was underwritten by an Academy grant provided by the
U.S. Department of Education.
It had been nearly 14 years since the last critical assessment of
O&P education. Numerous changes within the O&P profession
have necessitated advancements to the quality and consistency of
O&P clinical education and training. The target population was
future practitioners to meet the changing demands of O&P care
through appropriate, quality entry level education. The panel of
experts, from the ranks of educators, researchers and
practitioners, were gathered to clarify the issues involved in
moving the professional education of orthotists and prosthetists
from the current certificate and baccalaureate level to the
master’s degree level.
Executive Summary
Education Summit – Forecasting the Future
(Continued)


Consensus was reached regarding the current challenges facing
the profession and the recommended objectives necessary to
meet those challenges. A Master’s-level education was deemed
necessary for the delivery of quality patient care due to the
dynamic base of knowledge and emerging processes and
technologies. It was also evident that the state of O&P education
should be re-evaluated on a three-year cycle.
From the O&P Education Summit findings a report of short- and
long-term recommendations will be generated by NCOPE, the
Academy and other key stakeholders. NCOPE will assess and
create standards to help guide the O&P institutions to the
successful development of a master’s-level education. Advancing
the profession through increased education will ultimately be most
beneficial to the O&P consumer and his or her quality of life.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary (Slides 2-3)
Table of Contents (Slides 4-5)
Objectives and Resources for the Education Summit (slide 6)
Assumptions for the Education Summit (slide 7)
Question #1: Is the O&P body of knowledge relevant for the future
practitioner or does it need to be redefined as we move into the
future? (slides 8-13)
Question #2: Are the current core competencies relevant or do they
need re-evaluation or updating and expansion? (slides 14-24)
Question #3: Educationally, where does the profession want to be in
10 to 15 years? (slides 25-31)
Question #4: Why should the profession move towards a master’s
degree as an entry-level education in the next decade? (Slides 3240)
Table of Contents (Continued)
Question #5: If the profession transitions to a master’s degree
through the next decade, how will it affect the following key issues
(9 parts to this question)? (Slides 41-50)
Question #6: Will the current programs be able to justify this
transition to their university administrations? (Slides 51-57)
Question #7: How can O&P’s move towards a Master’s level program
be utilized to attract underrepresented populations and
practitioners to underserved areas? (Slide 58)
Implementation: Stakeholders and Resources (Slides 59-60)
Next Steps (Slides 61-63)
Post-Seminar Reporting Mechanics
Dissemination
Leveraging Opportunities
A Look at the Future – 5-10 Years Out (Slides 64-69)
Appendix I: Redefining O&P (Slides 70-72)
Objectives and Resources for the Education
Summit


Objective: To clarify the issues involved in moving the
professional education of orthotists and prosthetists from
the current certificate and baccalaureate level to the
master’s degree level.
Resources: The NCOPE Website (www.ncope.org) contains
a secure section dedicated to the Education Summit. It
contains a complete list of definitions, body of knowledge
materials, and seminal reports and white papers relating to
the O&P profession.
Assumptions for the Education Summit
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The profession, as a whole, takes the responsibility of
expanding/advancing the level of basic education, for entry into the
professional ranks, to the masters degree. It is expected that this
move will benefit the profession and the clients who receive services;
The current O&P education programs have the ability to and desire to
transition to a masters curriculum;
The body of knowledge and scope of practice upon which professional
practice is based has changed and expanded in the last fifteen years;
The core competencies that support professional practice are in need of
up dating;
The masters degree, as the entry level requirement has the possibilities
of attracting more students; keeping the profession on a level playing
field with its fellow allied health professions; and increase the numbers
of qualified practitioners, academicians and researchers;
The residency program will need to be revamped if it is to become a
formal part of the overall masters degree program.
Question #1: Is the O&P body of knowledge
relevant for future practitioner or does it need to
be redefined as we move into the future?
a.
Has the body of knowledge changed in the past ten
years? If yes, how?
b.
Has clinical practice changed in the last ten years? If
yes, has the body of knowledge kept pace with this
change?
c.
Will a growing body of knowledge expand our scope of
practice and move us to consider a new educational
model based on a master’s degree?
d.
Given increasing globalization, do we need to be
consistent with other countries?
e.
Does ISPO’s Category I standard identify
competencies and materials that should be parts of
O&P’s body of knowledge?
1a. Has the body of knowledge changed in the
past ten years? If so, how?
1.
The revised definition for the Body of Knowledge (BoK)
is: The basis for O and P practice, research and
education. The BoK defines our practice, research and
education activities
2.
Yes, the Body of Knowledge has changed in the areas of:









Technology,
reimbursement,
techniques,
practice settings,
documentation (medical/legal),
patient demographics,
access to literature,
research (change in the culture related to research ie.
education and residency),
evolution of education to a clinical model from a technical
model.
1b. Has clinical practice changed in the past
ten years? If yes, has the body of knowledge
kept pace with this change?
1. Yes, in the areas of:
 technology,
 clinical procedures and new patient management
techniques,
 professionalism (facility accreditation,
interprofessional relations), and government
regulation, and reimbursement
2. No, body of knowledge will always be and should always
be ahead of the clinical practice in order to drive change
and knowledge. The key is recognition of the changes and
this demands a mechanism of ongoing evaluation of the
body of knowledge (integration of the changes into
education and practice).
1c. Will a growing body of knowledge expand our
scope of practice and move us to consider a new
educational model based on a master’s degree?
YES. Masters level students will bring forth:
•
•
•
an expansion of scope of practice with improved research
increased analytical and technical research skills
improved methods (note to this group, what was meant by
“improved methods” – please clarify), practices and
publishing.
1d. Given increasing globalization, do we need
to be consistent with other countries?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Core consistency would be useful for collaboration between
educational programs across the globe
This could facilitate practicing in other countries, which has
not been fostered by other health professions
The European Community has agreed that ISPO Category I
is the minimum standard for practitioner education, and
will be phased in over time in all EU countries
Current schools in low income countries are working
actively toward Category I entry level education
These developments will increase pressure on the USA to
conform to this de facto international standard in the future
US standards may exceed the Category I requirements but
should still be consistent with those guidelines overall
This could increase the credibility of the US practitioner in
the rest of the world by demonstrating a consistent
standard and not a “crazy quilt” of entry options
1e. Does ISPO’s Category I standard
identifycompetencies and materials that should be
parts of O&P’s body of knowledge?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Yes, they seem to parallel the current NCOPE standards.
They could be formally incorporated into our structured
residency requirements, which would enhance the
consistency of preparation of students and increase
credibility in the eyes of the world and among allied health
peers.
Formal ISPO recognition will be increasingly important in the
future.
ISPO encourages education in both O&P but recognizes
education in only one discipline (see question 5a.).
The Category I practitioner incorporates research into patient
care and participates in clinical research
Question #2: Are the current core competencies
(taught in O&P programs and residency) relevant or
do they need re-evaluation or updating and
expansion?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Are there developing events, trends, or futures that will elevate demand
for O&P and/or change the nature of our body of knowledge?
If our core-competencies are not adequate for the upcoming decade does
this demonstrate the need for a new educational model (master degree)
or just re-evaluation of the current core competencies?
Will changing the educational system to better deliver the corecompetencies produce a better care-giver and researcher in the future?
If our core-competencies are inadequate to meet the needs of the future
what will we have to add in order to make them relevant to the future
practice of O&P?
How do the levels of O&P care (practitioner, technician, assistant, fitters)
fit into the current scheme of core competencies and are the corecompetencies specific to each level?
Is the practitioner level of competencies an accumulation of all levels?
How will we determine core-competencies for the future (practice
analysis, Nielsen study, experts)?
Is the ISPO Category I standard high enough?
Would that curriculum, etc., work for our healthcare delivery system and
schools?
2a. Are there developing events, trends, or futures
that will elevate demand for O&P and/or change the
nature of our body of knowledge?
Yes, future events will elevate demand for O&P and change
the nature of our body of knowledge if the profession makes
the right decisions and choices.
See the attached Core Competencies graphic on the next
slide, which portrays the contributions of Entry-level (plus
clinical) and Residency to the skill sets of the O&P
professional and his/her body of knowledge.
Core Competencies
Entry Level
(+ Clinical
Hours)
Cognitive
Behavioral/Affective
Traditional Hand Skills
(Psychomotor)
Technology
Skills
(Cognitive)
-Needs to and
continues to be
updated
-Integrated into entry level
ed. (internship)
There are two levels of “hand
skills”
1. Technical (as applies to lab)
and
2. Patient care i.e., physical
examination
-Constant reevaluation and
updating
required.
-Increase focus on
patient care (not
product focus)
-Distinguish science
vs. cliniical science
-Focus on consumer needs
-Enhance curriculum in area
(including the rehabilitation
team)
-Appropriate
treatment plan (health
economics)
Residency
(1 year per
discipline –
O and P)
-Current standards are
appropriate.
-Practical application
-Assessment of
acquisition of skills
needs updating.
-Constant impact on
behavioral/affective skills
(patient care)
-Evaluation process needs
updating.
-Interaction with better
educated consumers
requires different and
higher-level skills
-Ties together
lecture/demonstration through
lab.
-Should be basic minimum but
differentiation between
programs.
-We are still defined (unique) by
our hand skills.
-Technology won’t always be an
option in every case.
Residency is where theory hits
the road.
-Expand assessment processes.
-Focus on people, not just
materials
-Key to the
future; will
draw people to
the profession.
-Application
during
individual
patient care
-How, when,
and why?
2b. If our core competencies are not adequate
for the upcoming decade, does this
demonstrate the need for a new educational
model (masters degree) or just re-evaluation
of the current core competencies?
The masters-level degree plus residency is needed to deliver
the core competencies required for the practice of O&P.
See the Core Competencies graphic to demonstrate this point.
2c. Will changing the educational system to
better deliver the core competencies produce a
better care-giver and researcher in the future?
Yes, the quality of care and research will improve.
See the Core Competencies graphic to reinforce this point.
2d. If our core competencies are inadequate to meet
the needs of the future what will we have to add in
order to make them relevant to the future practice of
O&P?
The Core Competencies graphic suggests the sort of fullydeveloped masters-level plus residency combination needed
to deliver the core competencies necessary for the future
practitioner.
2e. How does the levels of O&P care (practitioner,
technician, assistant, fitters) fit into the current
scheme of core competencies and are the core
competencies specific to each level?
The current scheme is based on the practitioner level. We
are concerned that core competencies for each level are not
adequately defined and should be for fitter, technician and
assistant. We agree with the possible expansion of
practitioner core competencies.
2f. Is the practitioner level of competencies an
accumulation of all levels?
Yes, definitely.
2g. How will we determine core competencies
for the future (practice analysis, Nielsen study,
experts)?
The following combination of techniques will be needed:




Current and future practice analysis
Experts and funded studies
Skill assessment studies specific to each level
Use outcomes of these studies to improve educational
outcomes
2h. Is the ISPO Category I standard high
enough?
The “Professional Profile for Category I” standard is high
enough.
2i. Would that curriculum, etc., work for our
healthcare delivery system and schools?
Yes, though it will be difficult to attain this in a four-year
or master’s degree program without the component of
the residency program which is an integral part of this
and would have to be restructured.
Question #3: Educationally, where does the
profession want to be in ten to 15 years?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Should we transition to a higher-level degree?
If we move to a higher-level degree can we link this with our
residency program?
How do governmental issues, such as licensure and
competitive bidding affect the restructuring of education?
In light of the recent development of external pressures on
O&P (NRM, PT effects to eliminate us, competitive bidding,
licensure, impacts of technology), is it imperative that we
move to the higher level to maintain our place in the health
care world?
What role could technology play in basic education and
training, continuing education, refreshment of skills,
collaboration in practice, and sharing of best practices?
How and would reimbursement be affected?
3a. Should we transition to a higher-level
degree?
YES! (…as long as the body of knowledge drives this)
- This is much more likely to succeed with a combined O&P
curriculum
Further discussion is required to decide whether masters level
is the only pathway for entry level at some point in the future
(This point is discussed later in the findings).
3b. If we move to a higher-level degree can we link
this with our residency program?
Residency could be an integral part of the masters program.
Residency must be structured
Proper sequencing
Periodic assessment
Outcomes of residency should be measured (in-training
exam?)
Better academic support and mentoring of residency sites
(residents and directors) as well as sharing of best practices
Encourage affiliation with academic teaching hospitals/
universities
3c. How do governmental issues, such as licensure
and competitive bidding, affect the restructuring of
education?
-
-
-
Government issues impact the education process, but they
should not drive the process.
We need to think through the impact of education on
governmental issues - how will the changes of future entrylevel education impact governmental issues, i.e, licensure,
competitive bidding
Licensure sets the legal “bare minimums”. Some programs
will aspire to higher standards of achievement. This will
entire choice and variety into the programs available to
students.
3d. In light of the recent development of external
pressures on O&P (NRM, PT efforts to compete with
us, competitive bidding, licensure, impacts of
technology), is it imperative that we move to the
higher level to maintain our place in the healthcare
world?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Yes and enhance and change our place in the healthcare world.
Licensure and degree are highly recognized publicly.
Residency is the key factor for future and what is unique about
O&P (i.e., tie to licensure as requirement)
Yes, it is important to move ahead to master’s
In future – minimum master’s with door open to move even
higher
Define O&P – for O&P in the future - ok to be self-serving
Vision needs to step up and how we are perceived by others
(currently today – we simply are seen as suppliers – need to
move to the next level, being known as provider)
3e. What role would technology play in basic
education and training, continuing education,
refreshment of skills, collaboration in practice, and
sharing of best practices?
1. Yes, it has impacted O&P and will continue to do so.
2. Distance education and collaborative learning require
technology.
3. The issue of having enough people to teach appropriate
areas is vexing. Distance education can assist by sharing
access to key experts. (Most people join a practice
profession to be clinicians, not educators)
4. O&P should embrace technology
5. This will change the delivery of care model (practice
issue).
6. Patient management is still the centerpiece of care
(practice issue).
3f. How and would reimbursement be affected?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Issue of supplier (L-codes) vs. service (CPT-codes) – a
status change (greater level of responsibilities for the
practitioner).
Current system of reimbursement may not last – is
already experiencing changes.
Expanded scope of practice will require a new
reimbursement system.
O&P has a role in helping change the “landscape” of
reimbursement (hard to present however, a unified voice
is needed).
Transition/blur now and into future with custom made
and off-the-shelf devices.
The level of industry payment (salary) of technicians is a
concern.
Question #4: Why should the profession move
towards a master’s degree as an entry-level
education in the next decade?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
What evidence supports this transition?
Will this transition produce more teachers, researchers and
better clinicians?
Will this transition help us compete with external pressures
such as PT infringement, government relations, and lack of
reimbursement?
How does a master’s-level degree impact our clinical training
program?
Are there any negatives associated with this type of
transition?
Is there an international system of accreditation for
education?
Is there an international system for certification? Do they
mix the concepts of certification/criteria with education?
4a. What evidence (factors) supports this
transition?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The market (supported within the profession by Davis
and Edwards studies)
Expanded body of knowledge/technical advances
Need for evidence-based medicine (research)
Current curricula are poised for an upgrade to
Master’s, with addition of research skills, advanced
science, patient management, other related courses
Direction of other health professions
External pressures
 Perception of lack of education (related to NRM)
 Consumer expectations, demands and
accountability
4b. Will this transition produce more teachers,
researchers, and better clinicians?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Increased applications from those that might have applied to
Masters PT/OT programs. Also, attract applicants that may not
have considered the profession in the past.
Yes, better trained clinicians will ultimately increase teaching
and research capacity.
We may not produce more clinicians, but they will be deliver a
higher quality service.
It may be ideal to have requirements that facilitate both
practice and academic masters.
4c. Will this transition help us to compete with
external pressures such as PT infringement,
government relations and lack of reimbursement?
1.
2.
3.
We may retain and expand our scope of practice.
We will become a more credible member of the health
care team.
Evidence-based outcomes are necessary to improve
government relations and enhance reimbursement.
4d. How does a master’s-level degree impact our
clinical training program?
(Basic assumption: includes P & O education
and residency)
1. Standardization of minimum entry-level requirements
2. Combined P & O education
3. Offers choice: variety in educational models at the
master’s level
4. Opportunity for specialization
5. Brings increased research-based activity to profession at
practitioner level and educational level
6. Increase clinical skills education
4d. How does a master’s-level degree impact our
clinical training program?
(Continued)
7. Clinical experiences: integrated with program, at end of
educational program, and/or mixture of the two models
8. Opportunity to create coordination between education
program and residency sites with NCOPE oversight
9.
Enhancement of skills
10. Opportunity for specialization
11. Research
4e. Are there any negatives associated with this
type of transition?
Difficulty of implementation: funding, coordination of
residency if it is the responsibility of the school, increased
length of education, faculty development for advanced
degrees
Unclear identity of standards to the public
Pressure from existing practitioners who do not have that
level of training
Manpower issues with increasing length of curriculum
4f. Is there an international system of accreditation
for education?
ISPO is an international recognition of the process to be a
Category I & II practitioner, currently


Accreditation of the process began in 2004
Reviewed voluntarily on a 5-year term
4g. Is there an international system for
certification? Do they mix the concepts of
certification/criteria with education?
There is no international system.
No reciprocity at this time.
Question #5: If the profession transitions to a
master’s degree through the next decade:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Should O&P be combined into one discipline for master’s-level training –
thereby expanding the body of knowledge and producing clinicians who
can practice both?
Should O&P expand each discipline for master’s-level training and grow
each, thereby producing highly trained specialists for each?
How should it be designed – technical/professional, research or
combination of the two?
How will this affect the residency program since we recognize that
clinical training is necessary, and is it possible to make the residency
part of the master’s degree?
Has any other healthcare profession transitioned to a master’s degree
and are there models that we can evaluate?
Will the master’s-level design require a combining of orthotic and
prosthetics?
Will this affect the manpower shortage?
What faculty would be available to teach at this level?
Does the transitioning of the practitioner program to an entry level
master’s degree affect the education of our technicians, assistants or
fitters?
Will this program be attractive to potential students?
5a. Should O&P be combined into one discipline
for master’s-level training – thereby
expanding the body of knowledge and
producing clinicians who can practice both?
YES, Practitioner needs O and P to be both integrated at
the masters level.

Core education of both then specialization







Business
Teaching
Research
Clinical
Permit various structures to achieve a masters
Should develop outcomes measurements
Foster specialization
5b. Should O&P expand each discipline for
master’s-level training and grow each, thereby
producing highly trained specialists for each?
No, best if the master’s student is trained in both.
Specialization is encouraged after core education.
5c. How should it be designed –
technical/professional, research or combination of
the two?
Clinical P&O core + specialization
Technical
Business
Teaching
Research
Advanced Clinical
5d. How will this affect the residency program
since we recognize that clinical training is
necessary, and is it possible to make the
residency part of the master’s degree?
With specialization, academic residencies are even more
important.
It is possible to integrate the residency program into a
masters degree.
Investigate advantages and disadvantages of different
models.
5e. Has any other healthcare profession
transitioned to a master’s degree and are there
models that we can evaluate?
Nurse Practitioners
Physicians Assistant (PA)
Physical Therapy (has actually gone beyond master’s to
DPT)
Occupational Therapy (OT)
5f. Are we sure there is a manpower shortage?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Nielsen study suggested a manpower shortage, but it looked at the
ABC credential only. A more comprehensive study is needed covering both
ABC and BOC credentiled practitioners.
Government issues like licensure and competitive bidding will also affect
the manpower shortage.
Will there be other career pathways available other than the master’s
degree? (O&P has always embraced the career ladder concept for fitter,
technician, assistant, who could conceivably move up the ladder and
become practitioners. In reality, relatively few professionals have actually
followed such routes.)
Another key question: What are the career pathway options for
practitioner-level O&P professionals – practicing O&P, business owner,
working for suppliers/vendors, government/professional societies?
PR/Marketing will affect the attraction of people to the profession. A
master’s degree requirement may attract even more people, including
people who are would not have considered.
5g. What faculty would be available to teach at this
level?
1.
2.
3.
The current faculty would be available—however, the university
will likely require that the faculty have the equivalent or higher
degree than the program is offering. (Reference PORSTI report)
Adjunct faculty would be utilized, distance learning is an option.
Attraction of clinicians to be full-time faculty is an issue.
Faculty-practice plans could be utilized.
5h. Does the transitioning of the practitioner
program to an entry level master’s degree affect
the education of our technicians, assistants, or
fitters?
No.
However, if the assistants and fitter levels are redefined
(and/or combined) the education of this new level would
also need to be redefined.
5i. Will this program be attractive to potential
students (new students, international students,
current practitioners)?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Yes. Current post-baccalaureate programs have many of the
elements of a master’s level program.
Marketing/PR and recruitment will be the key, (i.e. NCOPE
residency requirement of an O&P awareness presentation,
AAOP O&P awareness program).
Accessibility of programs for practitioners who want to
complete the master’s degree will be important (on-line,
condensed programs – i.e. transition degree?).
Master’s may be less confusing to potential students than
the mix of currently available baccalaureate and postbaccalaureate certificate programs.
Value to the consumer may also be raised.
Question #6: Will the current programs be able to
justify this transition to their university
administrations?
a.
Will current bachelor’s/certificate programs be able to
move towards master’s-level training if mandated by
NCOPE?
b.
How long will it take?
c.
Is it of benefit to the university?
d.
What are the obstacles in the university system
preventing this?
e.
Will this increase student enrollment?
f.
Can O&P get crossover students from PT/OT?
6a. Will current bachelor’s/certificate programs be
able to move towards masters’-level training if
mandated by NCOPE?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
YES, given new standards and adequate time to
implement.
Baccalaureate vs certificate implementation?
Possible hurdles: financial , curriculum additions,
research, same students ?, more faculty, time to get
through the UCC (councils, hoops), sequencing, number
of credit hours? increased student fees, residency
interface
May be opportunity to create pre-admission curriculum.
Course work and hours now being taught, can lead to a
masters in some universities.
Post-bac entry eliminates many challenges dealing with
undergrads.
Clinical practice, science-based courses and research
6b. How long will it take? Active action on the
major vectors of change - this transition needs
to be accomplished by the end of 10 years
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Current institutions with master’s level will have a
prototype within the next 2 -3 years.
Transition will include the need for advanced degrees for
faculty, and acquisition of new faculty
Time will be needed to develop paperwork to transition to
Masters.
Move to O/P combination could reduce redundancy of
core courses and therefore total hours for Masters in O&P.
The challenge will include how to refine/reinvent 60-92
hours into an integrated O&P Masters. Specialization in O
or P will only be possible on top of an integrated O&P
base.
Will the length of the residency be shortened for O&P to
honor the overlap in patient care (integrated within the
program?).
6c. Is it of benefit to the university?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
We assumed that all present programs want to be
retained by their administrations.
Yes, but needs to be concerned about glut of Masters in
higher education. Majority of master’s offerings are
clinical or professional.
Added value/marketability for the University to include
Masters.
May allow for cross-over of people from other
professional lives.
The resources available for individual graduate student
loans are higher than those availabe for individual
undergraduates.
6d. What are the obstacles in the university
system preventing this?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
External & Internal “buy-in”
Structured and clear set of courses foundation
Demonstrate the academic rigor necessary for a
masters level program?
Provide unique course work
Identify & secure qualified instructors
Identify potential students and access to them
Fiscal
Adequate Facilities
Politics
6e. Will this increase student enrollment
(applicants)?
1.
2.
3.
Yes, on par with other Allied Health & other graduate
programs
Maybe, if not limited by current facilities and staff
No, if the resource demands are too great
f. Can O&P get crossover students from
PT/OT?
1.
2.
Yes, it is happening now and many other fields as well.
Some may chose to have multiple degrees to have a
broader scope of practice.
Question #7: How can O&P’s move towards a
Master’s level program be utilized to attract
underrepresented populations and
practitioners to underserved areas?
-
-
-
Awareness/outreach programs need to be conducted in
historically underrepresented areas
Academy working with NCOPE residents and O&P
practitioners to conduct outreach programs
Leverage the publicity of the masters level movement
Scholarships and internships can be critical
Entry-level master’s program may interfere with career
ladder i.e., gap between tech/assistant and practitioner and
how important is the concept of career ladder for the future
of O&P? This is a question that keeps being raised.
Implementation: Stakeholders and Resources

Stakeholders (impacted by implementation)
• Educational Institutions
 Six Plus One Developing
 Two with Masters
 Other non-O&P educational institutions (allied health
offerings)
• Applicant Pool/Students
• Residency Sites
• Practitioners (all credentials)
• Sister Organizations
 NCOPE, ABC, CAAHEP, AAOP, AOPA, NAAOP, NAPOE
• VA (especially related to research; implementing
residency grants)
• Patient Community
 ACA, MDA, PVA, UCP, Disabled Veterans, etc.
Implementation: Stakeholders and Resources
(Continued)

Resources
• Funding

•
•
•
•
Grants, Scholarships, Loans and Assistantships
Existing precedents (PT/OT examples)
Faculty/Facilities
Shared vision
Industry support

suppliers/practitioners/manufacturers endowments
• College Fund – est. to fund PhD programs
Next Steps –
Post-Summit Reporting Mechanics







Clean up PowerPoints
Loaded to www.ncope.org; www.oandp.org
Feedback from Summit participants
Consensus report finalized
Initial report to U.S. Department of Education,
Academy/NCOPE websites, CAAHEP/NCOPEaccredited schools, NAPOE with executive summary
of consensus/recommendations
NCOPE to approve/adopt and build implementation
foundation
Work with ABC to include in criteria for certification
Next Steps - Dissemination




O&P Almanac, Academy Today, O&P Business News,
oandp.com, In Motion, POI
Press release to stakeholders
Release information to other association allied health
professions (?)
O&P schools can use as evidence to secure institution
support
*Handled collaboratively by NCOPE & Academy
Next Steps –
Leverage Opportunities
Leadership
(Many participated in conference; others can be
contacted by phone/mail)







Directors are committed
“Fear factor”
Those that are there can help lead others
Is there a middle road between science-based and
professional masters? – must be clear to the student
Community colleges cannot offer masters programs –
try to establish ties to another school that can
Evaluate assistant/technician level training/education
It’s what’s best for the patient in the long run…not
just for the profession
A Look at the Future
(5-10 years out)
• The Practitioner

Focus on new processes/techniques
• Osseointegration; regeneration?





Robotics/bionics
Evidence-based practice
Paperless office/documentation
Virtual gait analysis and training/evaluation
Outcomes-based research
• Standards of care





Changes in patient issues (decrease in spina bifida,
treatments for diabetes)
Self-learners to easily adapt
Prevention experts – supporting patient wellness
Tighter relations with the rehab team
Enhancing the “able” body (performance-enhancing O&P
devices)
A Look at the Future
(5-10 years out)

The Academic Programs
• Engineer’s/manufacturer’s collaborative testing of
acceptable new devices ($$ for schools?)
• Faculty transition/turmoil – shift of programs and
elevation of current teaching faculty
• Increase in total number of faculty
• Delivery of education – accessibility/virtual
classrooms/simulations
• Changes in the way you teach – mentoring of students
• Change in learning process – more clinically driven
• Video student assessment to improve techniques
• Interfaces with the “Gen Y” group – technology saavy,
but too big for their britches, question authority (differs
across cultures/diversities)
A Look at the Future
(5-10 years out)

The Residency Programs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
School-based programs?
Distance casework
Summative exam
More structure and monitoring (residency review
board)
More stringent standards (weed out the weak) –
outcomes-based?
Closer matching process with schools and
residency sites
Elevate student expectations
NCOPE-accredited teaching residencies
Alternative sources of funding for residents
A Look at the Future
(5-10 years out)

O&P Manufacturers/Suppliers
• Practitioners may lead the R&D of manufacturers
 Reimbursements will be a hurdle
• Manufacturers will have practitioners on staff
• Practitioners demanding support data
• Increased support to the schools
A Look at the Future
(5-10 years out)

Relations with the O&P organizations
• Unification of ABC/BOC
• More agile relative to pursuing and leveraging
licensure
• Academy taking lead for the O&P professional
more close collaboration with ABC/NCOPE
• NCOPE driving education
A Look at the Future
(5-10 years out)

Professional Development/Continuing
Education
• Specialized online education courses
• Referring within the profession – recognizing our
own strengths and weaknesses
Appendix I: Redefining O&P



Orthotics and prosthetics is a profession that is redefining
itself.
Traditionally, the mission of orthotics and prosthetics has
been to prepare and dispense orthoses and prostheses. In
the performance of these roles, orthotists/prosthetists have
had close interactions with customers, so much so that for
a number of years orthotists/prosthetists have been ranked
in the national polls as one of the nation’s most trusted
group of professionals.
Nonetheless, orthotics/prosthetics, much more so than
most other health-related professions, has been based
upon a product-oriented ethos, and, as late as the 1950’s,
national law regulated the type of interactions
orthotists/prosthetists could have with their customers.
Redefining O&P (Continued)


Over the last decade or two, a new mission has been
emerging for the profession of orthotics/prosthetics care.
In this patient-centered ethos, the orthotist/prosthetist
takes responsibility for patient outcomes related to
orthotic/prosthetic patient management. The
orthotist/prosthetist “social object” is no longer a product
but a patient. This new mission intensifies the fiduciary
responsibilities that a professional has for the people he or
she serves. Orthotists and prosthetists still must be firmly
grounded in anatomy, physiology, biomechanics, but
increasingly important are their abilities to think critically,
solve problems, communicate, and resolve ethical
dilemmas.
Redefining O&P (Continued)


This new mission of O&P practice necessitates a
corresponding new mission for O&P education: to prepare
practitioners to provide orthotic and prosthetic care.
The challenge of O&P education today is to design, implement
and assess curricula that integrate the general and
professional abilities that will enable practitioners to be
responsible for O&P outcomes and the well-being of patients.