Identity Heft: What About all Those Credentials?
BALTIMORE--The promoters of the PT 2009 Second Annual Oxford Debate promised a rocking argumentative good time-and they delivered on Friday June 12 to a packed room of conference attendees who happily hooted and hollered approval or disapproval for their chosen side.
The Oxford Debate is held in interactive fashion with one side presenting a 3-minute case and the opposing side offering a rebuttal. Audience participation is encouraged and attendees were told to "switch sides" if they liked what they heard from the panel. It made for a lot of moving around, which made the proceedings more fun.
I love attending this debate, and the topic this year was a hot one: Should the profession of PT simply use the "PT designation and the highest-earned degree only, or should it continue to support numerous credential use after clinicians' names?
Presenting the argument for the elimination of credentials were Robert Landel, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS; Stephen C. McDavitt, PT, DPT, FAPTA, and Robert H. Rowe, PT, DPT, DMT, MHS, FAAOMPT. Presenting the argument for using credentials were Jonathan Cooperman, PT, DPT, JD, MS; Eric Hedegus, PT, DPT, MHSc, OCS, CSCS, and Dianne V. Jewell, PT, DPT, PhD, CSCS.
That is a lot of credentials for just one panel-but each side made a convincing, impassioned and enthusiastic call for their position in the debate. "This has been an argument since I graduated," joked Charles Ciccone, PT, PhD, moderator of the debate.
The "elimination" team went first. "Our profession is defined by our advanced body of knowledge, that is how our distinction is earned," said Dr. McDavitt. "We now have a credible new brand image for PT, and the single designation provides continuity about who we are. While our post-professional development is appreciated, we believe the abbreviations are only appreciated by the profession. We advocate use of the PT designation only." Dr. McDavitt continued to make his point with the help of his panel-mates--and a hilarious reading of "Dr. Seuss' Guide to Utilization of Credentials."
Dr. Jewell rebutted: "If we agree on a uniform set of letters, it should solve the question. Designators help us tell consumers who we are and our scope of services. To whom are we directing our credentials? When I use them people can find my specialties and they know I have research training. Is there some sort of space limit we have? If we use ‘PT' as the first identifier it should clear up any confusion; patients recognize the credentials as specialties, so we need the flexibility to express them."
Dr. Rowe countered: "We obviously place a high value on post-professional training, and the initials are used to help communicate mainly to the health care community what we do and helpo the brand. So we would support a standard set of designators; anything extra just diminishes our impact, leading to confusion. Some might believe the added credentials are necessary to practice in specific disciplines. If the public is to view us as a doctoring profession, we should help them view us as they do doctors-they are first and only MDs, and this should apply to PT as well."
Dr. Hedegus responded: "The use of initials causes confusion? I say they provide clarity!" To make his point, he then read Dr. Martin Luther King's "Let Freedom Ring" speech with no credential letters included (to much applause) and concluded, "Let's use the credentials that are rightly ours in the context that we see fit."
The audience was allowed to chime in and then summations began with Dr. Cooperman for the side of using credentials-quoting Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing". "We have bigger professional fish to fry! Our opposition wants you to believe this affects our profession, but we don't need any more policies from APTA on the use or non-use of credentials. To limit their use is absurd; aren't we regulated enough? The proposition here today is capricious at best and Draconian at worst! Let's allow our professionals to determine how and when to use credentials."
But the non-use argument got the last word by Dr. Landel: ‘While we acknowledge the work and training involved in earning credentials, is a string of alphabet the best way to clarify our achievements if no one knows what they all mean? Is it just for our own marketing? We say list what you have achieved under your name on cards or letterhead, as physicians do. The initials are there for you, not for an audience...let's put patients first and chose clarity over confusion."
In the end, the panel supporting the elimination of credentials--Drs. McDavitt, Rowe and Landel--were crowned the winners of the debate as a majority of the attendees sided (literally) with them. And ADVANCE's only regret is that we didn't get the entire proceedings on videotape; it was a lot of fun and sure to be a popular event at future conferences.