The Double-Booked Friday: PTA, Technician, and a New Evaluation
Priya Raman, PT, is the only physical therapist on site at a Baltimore County outpatient clinic on a Friday afternoon. She supervises Marcus, a licensed PTA with 18 months of experience, and Dana, a rehabilitation technician who holds a CPR card and a high school diploma but no Maryland license of any kind. Raman's 2:00 patient is a 44-year-old man six weeks after rotator cuff repair; the plan of care calls for progressive resistive exercise and neuromuscular re-education. Raman's 3:00 patient is a new referral for neck pain with radiating numbness into the thumb and index finger, and Raman has not yet evaluated him. At 1:45 the front desk adds an unscheduled patient, a 71-year-old woman with chronic low back pain whose previous therapist used TENS and interferential current. Raman is double-booked, the clinic's productivity target is 4.5 units per hour, and her regional manager texts that the techs 'can run the easy ones so we stay on schedule.'
1. Which of the three patients, if any, may Raman hand off, and to whom? Explain the scope-of-practice reasoning for each patient.
Read the worked answer
Evaluation is the dividing line in this scenario. The 3:00 patient with radiating numbness has no evaluation and no plan of care; only a physical therapist may evaluate, establish a physical therapy diagnosis, screen for red flags such as cervical radiculopathy, and set the plan. Neither Marcus (PTA) nor Dana (technician) may do any part of that, and Raman cannot adopt an evaluation someone else performed and sign it as her own.
The 2:00 rotator cuff patient is the best candidate for delegation. A plan of care exists, and progressive resistive exercise and neuromuscular re-education fall within what a licensed PTA may deliver under the supervising therapist's plan. What does not transfer is clinical judgment: advancing resistance beyond written parameters, changing the exercise progression, or reassessing the surgical shoulder remain Raman's. Marcus implements and reports; Raman decides.
The 71-year-old with chronic low back pain is a middle case. If Raman has evaluated her and written modality parameters, a licensed PTA may apply TENS or interferential current. A technician may not, because applying electrical stimulation is itself the practice of physical therapy, not a task that can be trained on the job. Productivity targets are a business constraint, never a defense to a scope violation.
2. Raman is called to another building for a mandatory meeting. Dana offers to 'just hook up the TENS and the estim for 15 minutes' using the parameters already written in the note. Analyze Raman's obligations and options.
Read the worked answer
This is the clearest prohibition in the case. Applying electrical stimulation - including 'just hooking up' electrodes to previously written parameters - is the practice of physical therapy. An unlicensed technician who does it commits unlicensed practice; a therapist who directs, permits, or arranges it aids and abets unlicensed practice and is exposed to discipline independently of the technician.
The documented parameters do not change the analysis. Electrode placement, skin integrity, contraindications (pacemaker, impaired sensation, pregnancy, cancer history), and the patient's response each session require licensed judgment at the point of care. 'The parameters were already written' describes a recipe, not a licensed provider.
Realistic options: reschedule the visit; treat the patient herself before leaving; or assign the session to Marcus, a licensed PTA, within the written plan of care, with Raman meeting the supervision standard the regulations require for PTA-delivered care. Before leaving the building she should confirm who is licensed and on site. If she leaves without that confirmation, she has delegated accountability she cannot delegate, and 'my manager told me to' will not answer a Board inquiry.
3. What should Raman's documentation and supervision record show for that afternoon, and what regulatory exposure does the clinic face?
Read the worked answer
The record for each visit should identify who actually provided the service and with what credential, what was done and with what parameters, the patient's response, and the supervising therapist's involvement - including any reassessment or progression decision Raman made herself. A co-signature is an attestation that the therapist reviewed the care, so co-signing a PTA note Raman never read misrepresents supervision and is itself a documentation integrity problem.
Regulatory exposure runs on two tracks. First, the Board's authority over unlicensed practice and over aiding unlicensed practice; the disciplinary range runs from reprimand and probation through suspension or revocation, with civil penalties available. Second, payer exposure: services delivered by an unlicensed person are not billable, and claims submitted for them create a false-claims problem that reaches the clinic's Medicare enrollment and private contracts.
The practical fix is structural, not heroic: Raman writes the evaluations and plans, assigns specific patients to Marcus by name, restricts Dana to non-skilled tasks such as transport, equipment cleaning, and clerical work, and puts her refusal of the manager's instruction in writing so the record shows who drew the line.