New Graduate, a High-Risk Caseload, and an Impaired Colleague
Marcus is an OT eight months into his first job with a home health agency, carrying a caseload of 27 visits per week. On Monday his supervisor assigns him two new patients: a 71-year-old woman with chronic lymphedema of the right lower extremity requiring complete decongestive therapy, and a 4-year-old with a feeding disorder and a history of aspiration. Marcus completed his Level II fieldwork in acute care and has not treated either condition since school. The same morning he arrives at the office and finds a COTA he works with sitting in her car at 8 a.m. smelling strongly of alcohol, with an open container in the cupholder; she says she is fine and has four patients scheduled starting at 8:30, and she is the one who is supposed to drive. The agency also asks Marcus to supervise two Level II students from a local program, effective next week, "since you're the only one who has time," and to co-sign the COTA's documentation from last Friday, which he has not reviewed.
1. How should Marcus respond to the lymphedema and feeding assignments?
Read the worked answer
The ethical principle is competence: a therapist provides services only within the scope of her or his education, training, and experience, and takes steps to develop competence when new areas are assigned. Licensure sets the outer boundary of what an OT may do; it does not certify competence in every practice area. Complete decongestive therapy and pediatric feeding with an aspiration history are both high-risk, technique-sensitive areas where an untrained clinician can cause lymphedema-related complications, aspiration, or harm.
The practical response is neither silent compliance nor flat refusal. Marcus should tell his supervisor, in writing, that he is not competent in these areas and propose options: co-treatment and direct mentoring with a competent clinician, a formal continuing education course plus supervision before independent practice, referral to a clinician in the agency or the community who is trained, or a delayed start date while training occurs. He should document what was agreed and what he did and did not perform.
The reasoning to demonstrate: "I'm licensed" is not "I'm competent," and a supervisor's assignment does not transfer the accountability for taking on a patient he cannot safely treat. Beneficence and nonmaleficence, not just obedience, drive the answer.
2. What should Marcus do about the COTA in the parking lot?
Read the worked answer
Patient safety comes first, and it is immediate. A colleague who smells strongly of alcohol, has an open container visible, and is about to drive to four patients presents a risk of harm to those patients and to the public. Marcus should intervene now: tell her plainly that he is concerned and that she should not see patients or drive in this condition, offer to call someone or arrange a ride, and notify a supervisor or administrator immediately - before 8:30 - so coverage can be arranged. He should not let her leave in the car while he "thinks about it."
The AOTA Code of Ethics and the profession's standards support reporting unethical or illegal conduct to the appropriate authority, including through the employer's process and, where warranted, to the licensing board, which may have a pathway for practitioners with impairments. The obligation is to protect patients while treating the colleague with dignity: the report should describe observed behavior, not diagnose addiction. Confidentiality does not mean silence.
Marcus should document what he saw, what he said, and whom he notified. If the employer does nothing and the colleague continues to practice impaired, escalation to the Board is the remaining step.
3. How should Marcus handle the student supervision assignment and the request to co-sign the COTA's note?
Read the worked answer
Both are capacity and accountability questions. Supervising Level II students is a real responsibility, not a scheduling convenience: he must be able to provide the supervision the students' programs and the Board's rules require, which means being available, on site as necessary, reviewing their work, and being accountable for the care delivered. With 27 visits a week and two new high-complexity patients, saying yes without a plan puts students, patients, and his license at risk. The defensible answer is to agree to supervision only with a written plan - reduced caseload, scheduled supervision time, designated backup - or to decline, and to confirm the supervisors' and students' qualifications and any required experience the Board rules impose.
Co-signing last Friday's note he has not reviewed is different: a signature asserts that he reviewed and stands behind the content and that he supervised the service. Signing blind is falsification of a supervisory attestation. He should read the note, verify the services against his own knowledge and the plan of care, resolve discrepancies with the COTA, document his review, and only then sign - or decline to sign and explain why in writing.
The reasoning: a signature and a supervisory title are claims about what you actually did. The same logic governs both requests.