Q: I joined RESNA and achieved the ATS certification about 5 years ago. At that time, I agreed and pledged to the RESNA Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. That RESNA Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice statement in a nutshell states that as a certified ATS, ATP or RET that you will practice within your scope of expertise and hold the consumer's best interest paramount at all times. I am supportive to the advancement of the program by which RESNA administers all of our certification. For example, at some point many years ago, a person could achieve the title of "doctor". In these early times, a person would go to a "doctor" for a broken leg, being unconscious, an infection or blindness. Now that medicine has made a few advancements, if we have a medical problem, the routine is quite different. We might see a "doctor" at first. However, we are likely to be seen and ultimately treated by a cardiologist, orthopedist, ophthalmologist, etc - depending on what our ailment is. This is no different. Our field is growing, expanding and advancing. We absolutely need to expand and offer additional certifications to illustrate various areas of specialty or expertise. I am sure that at some point up-and-coming physicians didn't want to have to "take another class or exam" either - but they did and now they are recognized for their efforts and I think we all agree those specialties are necessary divisions in the field that we can all appreciate.
As an industry, we need to continue to police ourselves. Support of Medicare's company accreditation ruling and employee certification ruling is one way that we have stepped in the right direction. Now that RESNA is in the process of making this program more appropriate and making this program respectable, it is time that all of us that are currently certified, whether an ATS or ATP, support their efforts. Certification and/or RESNA membership is voluntary. If you don’t want to participate in the furthering of the industry, then please stop posting negative comments. Negative comments only make our industry look more divided. It certainly gives us the reputation of "they wanted certification while it was good for them" and "they are for consumer protection and quality standards until it might affect their wallets".
I think that those of us that are committed to this industry and this certification for the long haul can only be appreciative and supportive of this proposed change.
I happen to be a person that has taken some extra classes and made an extra effort to focus and specialize on some computer access and environmental controls. It is interesting to see how many ATS and ATP certified individuals try to practice in this area without experience or focused education. I have repeatedly had to go behind these individuals and "clean up". Almost every time, the culprit has been an ATS/ATP that provided that client with a wheelchair and then tried to practice in an area outside their normal scope (anonymous)
A: The intent of the RESNA certification program was to identify individuals with a core competency in AT. While it has been used in policy to determine who is needed to provide what service, it is currently not a specialty certification in any particular area of AT, and this baseline certification, while it demonstrates an overall general knowledge of AT practice areas, does not itself identify competency in a particular area of AT. A current ATP practicing in seating and mobility likely does not have the experience or background to do an evaluation for computer access, for example. Recognition of specialty knowledge will be important to determine a specific area of competence in some practice settings.
Q: As an ATP, I felt the exam was a challenge however equally weighted. I wouldn't recommend changing a thing! Sheila
A: Because the content of both ATP and ATS tests is weighted across the various areas of AT practice, and this content is the same for both exam, certification with two different pathways, testing the same core knowledge, and defined by roles, cannot continue as it is without either combining or creating further differentiation in knowledge base. The current validation study conducted by RESNA’s PSB, along with the feedback received, will help to determine our next steps.
Q: What is wrong with the current ATP/ATS certifications? This change seems like it could be money driven, as I would believe a majority of the experts have already taken and passed the exam, and we would all be required to attend further training workshops and sit for exams, right (anonymous)?
A: All current certificants would maintain their certification and be transferred to the new designation without cost – it is an administrative function. There is no need for further testing unless someone wants recognition of further specialty knowledge in AT. This also can be done in other ways besides exams, such as continuing education. We welcome your feedback on development of specialty certification by posting your comments on our website at http://www.resna.org/content/index.php?pid=108 (Certification/Announcements section)
Q: There is a lot of information to think about but my initial reaction is frustration....having said that I absolutely agree with the one who wrote that you might consider a vote of the membership. How many of those making the decision on this are actually practicing in the community and truly experience this on a daily basis...who is getting confused with ATP/ATS? You mention that your goals are in line with Medicare etc....Shouldn’t they really be in line with what’s best for our clients? However, from what I hear, you have already made your decision and no "blog" will change your mind...why bother with this blog? I feel it’s just a way to "break it to us slowly with less backlash (anonymous).
A: RESNA will not proceed without carefully examining all issues and comments posted. The reason for the change is not dictated by policy. The RESNA certification program was implemented 12 years ago to identify AT as a specialty area of knowledge. In review of the current program, we find that certification delineated by role is stepping beyond the purpose of certification – it is not meant to imply who has permission to do what, as licensure does.
The other goal of certification is to protect the consumer and to help them find qualified people. This is difficult when lines blur, roles change, and people are not able to tell who specializes in what area of practice. As the current certifications test a baseline knowledge in AT but not a sub-specialty in seating and mobility, or computer, access, or the many other areas of practice, it is not possible in the current program to really identify the person to go to for a particular service. This will be dictated primarily by their current employer, their licensures, and other formal training. This is also why specialty recognition is important to help the public identify further knowledge in a particular area. The current certification helps to identify individuals who have a baseline knowledge demonstrating awareness of other areas of AT and how it impacts their recommendations, and when to refer elsewhere, and it lets all of these individuals speak in a common language.
Q: What is wrong with having someone who is an ATP that wants to switch to ATS just take the 50 questions that designate them as an ATS. Then you could have an ATS/ATP designation. I have always thought that the test should have a general knowledge section, and then the individual could choose to take what ever specialty section that they choose. I personally don't work with Aug Com, but I still have to test on it. I know mechanics do that for their certification. They have separate tests for brakes, engines, and so forth. I just think instead of combining everyone in to one group, it would be better to divide it up into specialties. Also it would be easier to determine what areas people specialize in.
A: The current exam tests the core AT knowledge in many areas of AT. Currently, the 50 exam questions that differ between ATP and ATS exams are not differentiated enough to identify a separate core knowledge, and the certification implies a role and permission to do something, which steps beyond what it’s true purpose should be. We agree that there needs to be a method to identify further specialty knowledge in particular areas of AT, and this is why specialty certifications are being considered, with the first one developed for seating and mobility. In some practice settings, however, there may be a need for specialty knowledge in many areas of AT practice, such as in special education or job accommodation, where many technologies are used. For some, the baseline certification will be sufficient to identify the broad AT knowledge, and for others, it may be important to further define specialty knowledge. We are looking for this feedback and welcome your input at http://www.resna.org/content/index.php?pid=108 (Certification/Announcements section)
Q: This in not meant to be a question. This just seems to be the only place to voice my opinion. I agree with what RESNA is looking to do. There are many complaints coming from both ATP and ATS certified professionals about the content of their exams, which is exactly why I think there should be one entry level exam. From my understanding, the current questions for the ATP and ATS tests come from the same question pool with a higher percentage of questions from certain subjects at the end, depending on which test is being taken. If this is true, then we are both taking tests with the same questions anyway. I am hoping RESNA intensions are what I think they are which would be to make sure everyone certified can communicate in all areas of AT at a basic/entry level, before moving forward.
My vote is for combining ATP and ATS to create Assistive Technology Professionals
Allow all Assistive Technology Professionals to sit for the RET exam
Allow all Assistive Technology Professionals the opportunity to specialize in areas of interest
Evaluation and Accessibility
Seating and Mobility
Technician
Augmentative Communication
Q: I am an OT with over 20 years experience in Rehab and AT. I was in the second group to take the ATP exam in New Orleans, and passed it. 10 years later, I didn't renew it, because at the time, there was no advantage professionally for me in my role as a staff OT at the hospital where I worked. I subsequently started working for an equipment vendor part time, and re-tested and passed again to renew my ATP, which they felt I needed at the time. I since have gone back to full time at the hospital, and have allowed my ATP to lapse. I did this mainly because of the expense and hassle to renew yearly, and because working for a hospital as a therapist, I saw no advantage to maintaining the ATP certification. The hospital is not generous with continuing education funding. I already maintain State licensure, and National certification for OT. I guess if I were going to work for a vendor, or a manufacturer, or give presentations on AT, I would probably take and pass the test again, but for right now, it's not for me. Make it easier for me to maintain it, and I might renew it again.
A: RESNA’s PSB is taking active steps to change the certification renewal requirements and is currently reviewing the criteria. Changes under consideration include a move to a 2-year certification period, broadened criteria for acceptable continuing education, and an opportunity to put certification under an “inactive” status when changes in employment, family situations, and more may make this option desirable, and a policy for reinstatement when a certification has lapsed, depending on the circumstance. These changes will be broadly posted with sufficient time for implementation when they are finalized.
Q: I have concerns about blurring the line between a vendor and a practitioner. Consumers and funding sources need to know that a professional therapist is making a recommendation without conflict of interest. Using the same credential will make the distinction less clear. I do support specialty certification, as we cannot possibly be competent in all the areas of AT.
A: Our intent is not to blur the lines, but to go back a step to remove the implication of role to the certification. An individual’s credentials include their degrees and their licensures, as well as certifications in different areas. A therapist already has that license to designate what they are able to do under their practice acts and under the law. It is also our responsibility to work with the industry in helping to affect policy and to recognize what is needed for quality practice in AT service delivery.
No comments:
Post a Comment