I can't hera
I totally agree with this motion. A 2-year DPT does not make sense to me from a face validity perspective. I have spoken with colleagues in other health disciplines about this and they don't think that 2 years sounds sufficient to warrant a doctoral degree. Physical therapy has an optics/image issue from other health professions anyway and a 2-year DPT definitely does not help that narrative. And, I wholeheartedly agree that it will reduce the credibility of the DPT.
Jim you came up with excellent counter points! Debby Givens, UNC Chapel Hill
I am strongly opposed to this motion and recommend that it is withdrawn. The Chatham University program is 27 months, and has been so since the inception of the DPT program in 2005. In 2 months, we will have graduated the 17th class, and well over 500 students since that time. We have a substantial amount of evidence demonstrating that our graduates are recognized by consumers, and health care professionals, as the practitioners of choice and as Doctors of Physical Therapy. I am happy to share any of that evidence, which goes well beyond pass rates and first time pass rates. In addition, I am extremely dismayed that we as educators are actually considering requiring a substantial additional time and debt to our students who already leave physical therapy education programs with upwards of $100K in debt.
Paula M Ludewig
The doctoral degree recognition/perception is a critically important point as is the time to learn. With athletic training moving to a masters degree our distinction is lost with 2 year DPT degrees from my perspective. Also there is a minimum time requirement for clin ed, why not for didactic prep? I support this motion.
What about the well-established programs that have been 2.5 years in length? Similar to comment about Chatham.
What effect would this motion have on programs' attempt to institute Competency Based Education?
What about # of terms/semesters vs. weeks
Has there been discussion about specifying rigor by number of units vs. length of time? Curious if this has been debated as an alternative that might achieve the same outcome but allow for truly “accelerated” programs?
I agree with Sara and JSchreiber, we also have a 28 month program with strong outcomes that go well beyond graduation rates and licensure exam pass rates. We have done this for over 15 years.
i don’t think terms would help since quarters are different
What are the real consequences of this motion being passed? Would ACAPT limit membership to programs who exceed whatever limit is established? I think about the common pre-requisite motion that was passed a number of years ago, and even though it passed many programs never instituted that change.
I agree with months especially with varying breaks no credit times I’d be in favor of minimum 30 months. We are at a University that takes almost no breaks more than a week between semesters.
Let's remember our primary function as Physical Therapists - TO TREAT PATIENTS! In a Direct Access era we have an opportunity to have a real impact on our patients and to make significant contributions to our healthcare system. I see our profession evolving into a mid-level provider and with that comes responsibility of medical screening and differential diagnosis as a physician extender. The NPTE is increasing the amount of medical knowledge which needs more time in the curriculum.
30 months = 130 weeks, 33 months =143 weeks
I support this motion. We barely have enough time now to provide instruction in all the necessary content areas. As a profession we have had a long term problem with credibility. I believe a reduction in program duration would undermine our credibility. Charlene Portee, ASU
UNM supports this motion
Discussions of length of DPT education also raise the questions about whether or not clinical education will remain under the purview of the academic program prior to graduation or whether there will be a change to restricted licensure for new graduates, then clinical residency and full licensure after completion of a period of residency.
This conversation also doesn’t take into consideration didactic vs. clinical time. If we are talking about length of time to teach everything we need to teach, then why isn’t the conversation about minimum didactic weeks?
Do those individuals working on the competency-based PT education pilot project have any comments?
question: if this motion is passed, will it also apply to schools that chose not to be members of ACAPT?
Great clin ed question, Becky.
A 3 year+ doctoral degree is not random. It is what is generally accepted in the academic and professional community.
Interesting point Diane - also interesting to think about what that means for number for students and faculty/student ratios
Would a range be appropriate, i.e., 2 1/2 to 3 years? Again, perhaps equate that to weeks, i.e., 120 wks or greater
Exactly what I was thinking Diane - time is a random point. Someone could be 3 years but only a few hrs/day whereas someone could be 2.5 hrs and 8 hrs/day. Additionally, it doesn't speak to quality of teaching
Wert, David M
Darcy - that is exactly where this conversation needs to go.
Dr. Cherie Peters-Brinkerhoff, University of St. Augustine
Outcomes (Grad rate, employment rates, NPTE outcomes) are available on everyone's website, as per the CAPTE accreditation standards.
Could credits bee looked at? There are only so many credits that can be accomplished in a week and there is a common understanding of the value of credits.
Some programs are having students take 24 credits in a term, which seems crazy.
Weeks may also not be a great indicator. My previous institution is 33 months and only 108 weeks. Well established, well-respected. The point about the difficulty in measuring time is significant.
I’d suggest reading, “Competency-Based, Time-Variable Education in the Health Professions: Crossroads (CR Lucey, GE Thibault, OtCate)), 2018. History alone is not evidence, we need to re-evaluate and focus on the processes of learning, the WAY we teach, the expectations of ours students, etc. Thus, although I am a PD of a 4-year program, I oppose this motion.
A substantial amount of evidence and data exists to support the effectiveness of programs that are less than the three years identified in this motion.
I really wonder if some of what we are struggling with is the idea that short programs may not have enough time for reflective practice, a key to emotional intelligence growth and development? Doctoring level education means not just developing skills but developing thinking. Some students can get there quicker than others but time does force thinking.
What are the outcomes that we can all agree demonstrate mastery? These outcomes need to be identified and then different models of education can be tested and evaluated regarding their ability to achieve these outcomes.
JIM< I think you can take the screen share off so we can see each other if there are no more slides.....
Dr. Cherie Peters-Brinkerhoff, University of St. Augustine
Darcy-exactly. "How do we know" the graduates have met the set PLO's and what if they do not?
I am extremely concerned that we are equating value with time. Creating a 3-year standard does not guarantee quality. Instead, it poses substantial burden to students. Will we not lose even more students to shorter educational programs with greater earning potential (e.g. - PA)? We need to make our profession attractive to students. We perhaps should be thinking about other quality benchmark standards to prevent dilution of the doctoral degree.
If there is anything this pandemic has taught us, it is that we have an obligation to mentor our students in their role as reflective professionals within a complex healthcare system and social structure. They are not technicians.
Athletic training is going to a 2 year master's degree program. How is that any different than a 2 year DPT? I suppose if people really feel that you can teach the competencies necessary to practice as a PT in 2 years then maybe we should allow programs to go back to the master's level...
So…are those of you in support of a 3 year minimum saying that a 118 credit hour program in 2.5 years is less robust, less doctoral, less effective than a 118 credit hour program in 2.5 years? I hear people talking about reflection-I agree, but are you saying we cannot facilitate reflective practitioners in 2 years? There is no evidence that this is true at this point in time.
Just because time is spent does not mean that the time was spent in high quality activities
One of the reasons we said we needed a DPT was that 2 years was too little time! We also universally added content to reflect a doctoral level of education---more EBP, imaging, health policy, etc.
I think we are having multiple conversations. one conversation is in relation to developing excellent, reflective, competent practitioners and trying to relate that to time. Which is connected to effective teaching and learning. The other conversation is can you achieve a DPT/doctorate degree in 2 years. If we are saying yes, then we are changing/adjusting the norms in the academic community and I think that’s a big jump/leap to make.
@LD Woods, good point
I agree with Dr. Diane Jette, we need to remember "why" we moved so quickly from the Master's level to the Clinical Doctorate and one of the reasons was "time" Time to include all of the elements of excellence. we agreed as a Profession that 2 years was not enough
I am not speaking in support or opposition to the motion but I also think that we need to consider the impact on mental health. Many of our students are already struggling with mental health issue and the stress of graduate level programs. Whatever model we advocate for, it is important to think about giving students time for physical and mental rest.
Wert, David M
If it is on the 2.5 year and 2 year programs to show that it can be done, I think we have seen that it can be done....and has been done for some time now.
Does this motion prevent the possibility to attain data by limiting the ability to have a 2 year program?
Rob Landel (he | him | his)
@LD Woods: nice summation of the two threads. RE: the time component: a typical Master’s degree is 36-54 semester credits/ 60-90 quarter credits. At a very fundamental, structural I.e. university/academe level: how can one justify requiring double that number and still only grant a masters degree?
Capte has established a minimum number of weeks for the clinical experience part of our DPT degree. So truly we are talking about the didactic portion - either based on number of weeks, or competency level
Texas State is three years but 120 weeks!
Puget Sound has been at 30 months (114 weeks of actual instruction) for >15 years w/strong outcomes.
@Susan Shore, or units/credits
Karen good point. These are different students from years ago. Mental health issues is on the rise and I have seen a huge increase and spend a lot of time working with students. I cannot imagine trying to get them to learn the material in 2 years and have them be safe and healthy.
There is data and evidence in place already that supports the success of our 27 month program! It is disappointing that this evidence (and that from other similar and long term programs) is not being considered by proponents and supporters of this motion.
Wert, David M
that perception can be addressed by the data we provide and the outcomes our students achieve
Rob Landel (he | him | his)
@JSchreiber citation? Would be interested to read this
Thank you Jim for facilitating us to think deeply about this.
thanks to all