Tom, Val, and Paul,

There are obviously a myriad of issues revolving around the “incident to” saga.  A couple of things to ponder: 

1)      Our state regulatory acts possibly define a population that we are legally allowed to treat.  Some well written acts avoid defining a population and simply define the types of “injury or illness”.  It is a difference in wording that may look like either: A) ATCs may treat “any person involved in athletic participation”; or, B) ATCs may treat any person who sustains an “athletic related injury or illness”.  The former defines a population, while the latter defines types of injury or illness.  It would behoove those of us involved in governmental affairs to insure the wording clearly supports NOT defining a population.  This limits our practice.  That said, on to #2.

2)      To say that our profession is having growing pains is a gross understatement.  While I appreciate the NATA’s push to get ATCs in a variety of settings, I truly believe this is hurting our profession at this point.  We, as educators, have continued to see the number of competencies and proficiencies grow and grow due to the role delineation study being completed by/in more and more varied employment settings.  My humble opinion is that we need to get back to our roots!!  Who, to date, has defined true “entry-level” knowledge of athletic trainers?  Who has defined a basic skill set? Has it been the public or has it been ATHLETIC TRAINERS??  Indeed, if we want ATCs to be employed at amusement parks, public beaches, and in city employment offices, then our skill set needs to be quite varied.  However, I would insist that we remind ourselves of what our profession was founded upon and where over 60% of our membership is still employed!  Until our profession defines this basic entry-level knowledge, we will continue to feel growing pains.  If we plan, as a profession, on entering into treating anyone in need of “rehabilitation services”, and getting this put into law, what will that do to our role delineation study?  What affect will that have on our understanding of basic entry-level knowledge and skills?  My plea to the NATA BOD is to consider if our current educational structure can even support this dramatic change, if it happens.  “Rehabilitation services” covers a lot of ground.  “Rehabilitation services for athletic related injury or illness” is more appropriate, again, in my humble opinion.  At some point, we have to draw a line and say, “This is where our practice stops.”  Then, perhaps, we can focus again on improving the work settings of a majority of our membership, such as getting an ATC in every high school.  I am much more concerned about care for those high school athletes than I am about employees of City Hall or day-trippers to amusement parks.

Respectfully,

  Debbie Craig

Debbie I. Craig, PhD, ATC, LAT

Program Director, Athletic Training Education Program

Northern Arizona University

PO Box 15094, Flagstaff, AZ  86011-5094

phone:  (928) 523-0704

fax:      (928)523-4315

email:   Debbie.Craig@...