As a part of the American Physical Therapy Association’s (APTA) vision statement, by the year 2020, physical therapists ‘‘will hold all privileges of autonomous practice.’’ This vision statement and the ideals held within it are elemental to the direction of our continued growth as a profession. Many members and nonmembers, however, appear confused and perhaps even intimidated by the concept of autonomous practice.

This paper will review and discuss the processes used by other health care professions to gain autonomy within the US health care system – in particular, the processes used by physicians, which were extremely effective and have been used as a template by many other health professions, including physical therapy. Further discussion will focus on the physical therapy profession, emphasizing the parallels with medicine and considering many issues relevant to the goal of autonomous practice.

By understanding the past and considering the present, readers will develop an appreciation of (1) the foundation for autonomous practice in health care, (2) the vision of the APTA and why the profession is well positioned to achieve this vision, and (3) the factors we need to consider to hold (and maintain) all privileges of autonomous practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35(10):628-636.

Key Words: autonomous practice, interdependent practice, professional autonomy

Study Design: Resident’s case problem.
Background: Vertigo and visual disturbances are common symptoms associated with vertebrobasilar insufficiency (VBI), but the physical examination procedures to verify the existence of VBI have not been validated in the literature. The objective of this resident’s case problem is to demonstrate how a patient’s complaint of vertigo and visual disturbances, combined with positive clinical examination findings, can be a potential medical screening tool for VBI.
Diagnosis: The patient in this report was initially referred to physical therapy for neck pain. However, the patient’s chief concerns identified during the history were (1) vertigo, (2) visual disturbances, (3) headache, and (4) right shoulder region pain. Clinical VBI tests were performed, whereby the patient’s vertigo and visual disturbances were reproduced with cervical spine extension. The patient was sent back to the referring physician to be evaluated for possible VBI.
Diagnostic imaging tests were ordered. Carotid ultrasound revealed 80% to 90% stenosis in the proximal left internal carotid artery, and magnetic resonance angiography of the extracerebral vessels showed greater than 90% stenosis of the left internal carotid artery.
Discussion: VBI may be present in patients with subjective reports of vertigo and visual disturbances that are reproduced with VBI physical examination procedures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35(10):645-650.

Key Words: cervical spine, direct access, neck, primary care, vertebral artery

Study Design: Resident’s case problem.
Background: The signs and symptoms of cervical radiculopathy (CR) warrant the consideration of several other conditions in CR’s differential diagnosis. One condition that may mimic CR, which is not well known among physical therapists, is Parsonage-Turner syndrome (PTS). PTS is characterized by an onset of intense pain that typically subsides within days to weeks. However, as pain subsides, weakness and/or paralysis may develop in upper extremity muscles. The purpose of this resident’s case problem is to describe a patient who presented to our clinic with a diagnosis of CR, but had findings consistent with PTS.
Diagnosis: The patient was a 43-year-old male referred to physical therapy with a diagnosis of CR. He had a previous episode of CR 1 year ago that was treated successfully. He had positive magnetic resonance imaging findings of structural abnormalities suggestive of causative factors for CR. The patient was treated for CR with thoracic and cervical spine manipulations and intermittent cervical traction. The initial acute severe pain subsided, but weakness in the upper extremity worsened. Diagnosis of PTS was made upon exclusion of other potential confounding diagnoses and the findings of fibrillation potentials and positive waves in electrodiagnostic studies.
Discussion: CR and PTS are characterized by pain in the cervical spine, shoulder, and upper extremity. CR generally has an insidious onset, while PTS has a rapid onset of intense pain. Symptoms of CR are exacerbated with neck movements, while symptoms related to PTS should not be exacerbated with neck movements. In patients that do not respond to conventional therapy and have a progression of upper extremity muscle weakness, regardless of decreased pain, the diagnosis of PTS should be considered. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35(10):659-664.

Key Words: cervical spine, neck, nerve, upper extremity

Study Design: Nonexperimental, retrospective, descriptive design.
Objectives: This study was designed to ascertain whether direct access to physical therapy placed military health care beneficiaries at risk for adverse events related to their management.
Background: Military health care beneficiaries have the option at most US military hospitals and clinics to first enter the health care system through physical therapy by direct access, without referral from another privileged health care provider. This level of autonomous practice incurs broad responsibilities and raises concern regarding the delivery of safe, competent, and appropriate patient care administered by physical therapists (PTs) when patients are not first examined and then referred by a physician or other privileged health care provider. While military PTs practice autonomously in a variety of health care settings, they do not work independently within any facility. Military PTs and physicians rely on one another for sharing and collaboration of information regarding patient care and clinical research as warranted. Additionally, physicians indirectly supervise military PTs.
Methods and Measures: To reduce provider bias, a retrospective analysis was performed at 25 military health care sites (6 Army, 11 Navy, and 8 Air Force) on patients seen in physical therapy from October 1999 through January 2003. During this 40-month period, 95 PTs (88 military and 7 civilian) were credentialed to provide care throughout the various medical sites. Descriptive statistics were analyzed for total workload, number of new patients seen with and without referral, documented patient adverse events reported to each facility’s Risk Management Office, and any disciplinary or legal action against a physical therapist.
Results: During the 40-month observation period, 472 013 patient visits were recorded. Of these, 112 653 (23.9%) were new patients, with 50 799 (45.1%) of the new patients seen through direct access without physician referral. Throughout the 40-month data collection period, there were no reported adverse events resulting from the PTs’ diagnoses or management, regardless of how patients accessed physical therapy services. Additionally, none of the PTs had their credentials or state licenses modified or revoked for disciplinary action. There also had been no litigation cases filed against the US Government involving PTs during the same period.
Conclusions: The findings from this preliminary study clearly demonstrate that patients seen in military health care facilities are at minimal risk for gross negligent care when evaluated and managed by PTs, with or without physician referral. The significance of these findings with respect to direct access is important for not only our beneficiaries but also our profession and the facilities in which we practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35(10):674-678.

Key Words: adverse effect, adverse event, liability, primary care