Posted: 18 December 2009 The Physiotherapy Board at its meeting on 11 December 2009 considered the report on the analysis of the submissions received on its consultation document. The Executive Summary follows below. On the strength of the support for the role of Physiotherapy Specialists and for recognition being by regulation under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance (HPCA) Act, the Board is now establishing an Advisory Group to develop the process for implementation. The Board also noted the strong support given by the profession to the November 2007 consultation document from the joint New Zealand College of Physiotherapy and New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists Advanced Practitioner Working Party. Executive Summary
1. A total of 94 submissions were received from 69 individual physiotherapists, nine physiotherapy organisations and seven other organisations. Not all respondents answered all the questions in the consultation document.
2. 82 (87%) of the 94 respondents supported the role of Physiotherapy Specialists being recognised in New Zealand.
3. A number of perceived benefits in recognising Physiotherapy Specialists were identified:
enhancing quality of clinical practice;
improving patient outcomes;
strengthening of clinical leadership roles;
providing cost-effectiveness (e.g. when physiotherapy specialists employed in initial assessment and management of new referrals to outpatient orthopaedic departments).
providing a pathway for advancing careers; and
assisting in the retention of staff.
4. The potential risks identified mainly related to:
non-specialists being considered by the public and ACC as having insufficient knowledge to achieve good patient outcomes;
increased salary costs for employers; and
the costs of gaining physiotherapy specialist status.
5. The majority of respondents (84%) considered the role of Physiotherapy Specialists should be recognised through regulation by the Physiotherapy Board under the Health Practitioners Competency Assurance (HPCA) Act. Of these 84% respondents, 22% also made additional comment that the New Zealand College of Physiotherapy should have a role. An additional 9% of respondents considered recognition of Physiotherapy Specialists should be solely by the New Zealand College of Physiotherapy.
6. The majority of respondents (75%) considered it necessary to regulate Physiotherapy Specialists to protect the health and safety of the public. However, a number of queries were raised as to whether there would be a need for Physiotherapy Specialists to be subject to specific regulations above those which apply to all registered physiotherapists.
7. The perceived benefits of regulating Physiotherapy Specialists in terms of protecting the health and safety of the public were in the main related to the need for the public to know that their safety is protected by the Board acting as an independent authority for the monitoring and application of competency standards through a formally recognised and regulated specialist route. A number of respondents also commented that the current unregulated use of the word 'specialist' by some physiotherapists is misleading to the public. Potential risks were seen as minimal if the regulation process for Physiotherapy Specialists is robust.
8. The understanding of a clinical specialist was most commonly expressed as a physiotherapist who has additional training or qualifications and/or is considered an 'expert' or highly experienced in a designated field.
9. The majority of respondents preferred the title 'Physiotherapy Specialist'.
10. The potential impact on physiotherapists not registered within the scope of practice for physiotherapy specialists and therefore unable to use the title 'specialist' was seen as minimal, with business effects cited as having the potential for greatest impact.
11. The majority of respondents indicated they did not consider there would be an impact on existing advanced practitioners with the establishment of a scope of practice for physiotherapy specialists. This was because they considered advanced practitioners would be able to meet the criteria for 'specialist'.
12. There was a mixed response on whether there would be a need to develop a separate scope of practice for specialist physiotherapists - 48% considered there should be a new scope and 38% considered the current general scope of practice would also cover specialists.
13. The majority of respondents (73%) agreed that the minimum qualification for Physiotherapy Specialists would be a clinically relevant post graduate master's degree. A number of respondents felt that years of experience and other individual programmes of learning could also be approved.
14. The respondents were nearly equally divided in their responses to which areas of physiotherapy practice should be considered for specialist status. While the majority favour a wide approach that includes a large number of speciality areas, strong support was also expressed for the areas of practice to be limited to those currently endorsed by the New Zealand College of Physiotherapy for Advanced Practitioner status. Some wish to include areas of practice that are not currently within the general scope of practice, for example, diagnostic ultrasound; prescribing medications; giving injections.
15. A wide range of answers were given in response to the certification requirements for Physiotherapy Specialists with many respondents having difficulty in providing a specific answer to the question. However those who did provide a clear answer were in favour of the recertification requirements proposed by the New Zealand College of Physiotherapy, namely:
a current annual practising certificate;
two yearly peer review;
evidence of continued clinical practice;
continuing professional development as per the Physiotherapy Board requirements with more that 50 % in the speciality area; and
membership of a relevant professional association.
16. The respondents who added other comments at the end of the questionnaire were in general:
emphasising their views expressed in answers to earlier questions;
giving information about physiotherapy specialisation in other countries e.g. Australia and the USA;
advising of the need to consider the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition legislation and the desirability of having consistency in specialisation processes within Australian and New Zealand; and/or
thanking for the information provided and opportunity to comment. Top of page | 
