The Aide Who Applied the Modality
Marisol is a Florida-licensed PT assistant working in an outpatient clinic. Her supervising PT, Dr. Chen, has evaluated a 62-year-old patient three weeks post total knee arthroplasty and set up a plan of care including therapeutic exercise and neuromuscular electrical stimulation to the quadriceps. Dr. Chen is off-site at a second clinic today; the two communicate by phone and share documentation in the EHR. During the session, the clinic's unlicensed rehab aide, Tony, tells Marisol he has 'done e-stim a hundred times' and offers to run the stim portion while Marisol finishes documentation on another patient. Marisol is behind on notes and the patient is waiting. She knows Tony has a high school diploma and on-the-job training only, and that the clinic is short-staffed. The patient's stim parameters were written in the plan of care by Dr. Chen.
1. Can Marisol delegate the electrical stimulation setup and application to Tony? Analyze under Florida law, distinguishing what a PT assistant may do versus what an unlicensed aide may do.
Read the worked answer
No. Marisol cannot delegate the stim to Tony.
Why: Florida distinguishes between two categories of support personnel. A physical therapist assistant is licensed and may, under PT supervision, provide interventions within the plan of care. An unlicensed aide may perform only non-skilled, supportive tasks (e.g., transporting patients, cleaning equipment, clerical work, preparing treatment areas). Applying a modality such as electrical stimulation to a patient is a skilled intervention and is outside the lawful scope of an unlicensed aide.
Application: Tony's informal 'experience' does not create authority; scope is set by statute/rule, not by clinic custom. Marisol remains responsible for the care she delivers. If she lets Tony apply the stim, both she and the supervising PT expose themselves to discipline, and the clinic to enforcement action.
What she should do: Either perform the stim herself (it is within a PTA's scope under the plan of care and PT supervision), or reschedule that portion. She should not let documentation pressure override scope rules.
2. Dr. Chen is off-site. Does that change the analysis of whether Marisol may treat this patient at all?
Read the worked answer
It matters, but it does not by itself make the treatment unlawful.
Key point: A PTA practices under the supervision of a PT, and Florida's supervision requirements are not identical to 'the PT must be in the room.' What is required is that the PT has evaluated the patient, established the plan of care, and provides the level of supervision the rules require, with the PTA functioning within that plan. Off-site supervision is permissible to the extent the rule allows, provided the PT remains available and the required oversight/documentation occurs.
Application to Marisol: The stim parameters were already set in the plan of care by Dr. Chen, so the clinical decision-making is the PT's. Marisol may carry out the intervention as a licensed PTA. The off-site status does not authorize substituting an unlicensed aide, and it does not eliminate Marisol's duty to stay within the plan and flag changes to Dr. Chen.
Caution: If the patient's condition changed or new interventions were needed, that would require PT reassessment, not independent PTA expansion of the plan.
3. Suppose Marisol goes ahead and has Tony apply the stim, and the patient later reports a burn. Frame the likely regulatory exposure for Marisol, Dr. Chen, and the clinic.
Read the worked answer
This is a scope-and-supervision violation layered on a patient injury.
Marisol (PTA): Delegated a skilled intervention to an unlicensed person and failed to ensure care was delivered within lawful scope. That supports a complaint and potential disciplinary action (e.g., reprimand, probation, suspension, fines, or conditions), independent of the civil injury claim.
Dr. Chen (PT): As the supervising PT, bears responsibility for the plan of care and for supervision of personnel delivering care under that plan. Allowing (or failing to prevent) an aide from performing skilled interventions is a supervision failure.
The clinic: Facility-level exposure for using unlicensed personnel outside permitted supportive tasks, plus recordkeeping/injury-reporting obligations.
Process: A complaint would go to the licensing authority, be investigated, and could proceed to an administrative complaint and hearing. The patient's injury also creates civil liability exposure.
Takeaway: The defense 'the aide was trained' or 'we were short-staffed' is not a legal defense; scope is defined by law and rule.