APTA 2024 CSM #physicaltherapy Musings-Part II: What Do Students Want?

In Part I of #physicaltherapy Musings, I recounted my observations of 2024 CSM and how the state-of-the art in physical therapy is best represented by the exhibit hall. After all, these folks pay big bucks directly and indirectly to be present and they do so with an expected return. For those selling wares it is gaining a customer database in terms of scanning in contacts for follow up. For those trying to lure #physicaltherapy students, it is scanning contacts for follow up to hire. The only thing that has changed in this regard is the name saving technology. At my first CSM (1987), they wrote down your name, now they scan the QRC code from your name tag as though you were a grocery item.

By reminder, the exhibit hall is now dominated by employers of all size and types-from hospital systems to private practices, public company, private equity backed companies to temporary placement or travel services. The booths ranged from all sizes and types in attempt to woo students to come by and get scanned. If you had an SPT (student PT) next to your name, you got to be Taylor Swift or Travis Kelce inside the hall-they couldn’t keep your hands or eyes off of you!

Our booth at Confluent was very inviting and creative-set up to chat with students as they came by, some book signings which created additional opportunities, and a special “bubble” set up to sit down and chat directly with some privacy. A constant theme amongst the many trying to recruit the over 3,600 student attendees was to find the magic bullet that attracts prospective candidates. There is an underlying belief that this generation of student is looking for something very different in their first PT employer and everybody is trying to find it. The reality is that not much has changed.

I try to be a bit different in my meetings with students, not only in terms of the year they are in (1st, 2nd, 3rd) but whether or not they are a student that went directly to graduate PT school (most of them) or if they are second career. For example, I never ask them what they are looking at in an employer or what specialty are they considering. After some general introductions, I did ask many of them what has been the most common question that you have been asked by potential employers. This led to a resounding-“what are you looking for in your first employer and what specialty are you considering?”. So much for trying to be original.

By way of context, according to survey data, the average first year PT on their first job has changed mildly over the years-has gone from about 6 months to currently 8 months! Whatever employers are looking for in a match to align mutual interests it simply is not working. 30 years ago students wanted an environment where they could learn, grow and develop, and be mentored into a master clinician. Student’s want a fun environment, they want all the key security benefits, and they want to make a difference. Today, their wants are the same. They might not be as aggressive in the development side (e.g. delaying residency) and they might need a bit of coddling (clinical readiness issues which will be subject of its own post) but their desires and needs are exactly the same.

Two environmental things that are notably different today-vast amount of student debt (150-200k is typical) and tremendous shortages occurring at a time just after major labor and general inflation-the malaise of 2022. While salaries have gotten much higher they are still out of step with tuition creep and the vast amount of student debt-that’s simply a fact but how this flies in the face of an over regulated and poorly reimbursed field is the greater viability challenge. The unintended effect of all of this is that both students and employers are very focused on the primary attractor of compensation via sign on bonuses and other techniques (e.g. productivity or other bonuses). What hasn’t changed is mobility and optionality: a new PT can work in any environment in almost every state and obtain about any specialty they want. It does appear that compensation has moved up the ladder and is at least tied as a primary attractor for students because of combo of inflation and student debt. So, why is first year length at their employer so short?

Based again on survey and anecdotal data, “mentoring” programs have disappointed many. Instead of a collaborative, structured relationship, mentoring has become “this is the way we treat patients around here” and “this is the way we use the EMR”. Many mentors are just mildly more experienced than the mentee and the mentor is also been pressured by numbers as employers have doubled down on the way to keep them accountable for productivity, visit intensity, and new patients. It is kind of hard to mentor when you are worried about your own productivity bonus or required patient quota. All of this creates a downward spiral resulting in disengagement. This creates the 8 month tenure and reflects what Gallup reported many years ago, people don’t leave their job, people leave managers, not companies. Gallup’s own sobering poll results from last year: 62% are indifferent to their work lives. 18% are downright miserable.

So what is the antidote? First, it is critical that what employees want hasn’t fundamentally changed in years but more importantly, new employees or the students we are trying to recruit work in the team, work with a mentor or supervisor, not for the company. Second, train employees in engagement (5 Cs —Care, Connect, Coach, Contribute, and Congratulate), setting expectations, the difference between “mentoring” and a structure mentorship, and how to measure how well they are doing (pay particular attention to numbers 1,2,4,5, 11). An employer can get a PT student in the clinic, but it is the clinic (team) that keeps them.

And don’t look for that to change anytime soon.

Thoughts?

@larry

Future posts will focus on interviewing and what the research tells us that additionally, Employees Really Want!

Please subscribe to my substack, Medium, or view on EIM’s blog where prior posts for years can be accessed.

Thoughts and opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect any organization I am affiliated.

Telehealth- MacGyver #physicaltherapy or New Opportunity

In the mid-1980s, Richard Dean Anderson portrayed Angus ‘Mac” MacGyver, a protagonist who rebooted the fame of the Swiss Army knife, duct tape, and ID card with an incredible knack at unconventional problem solving of unforeseen problems.  A sensitive dude, MacGyver tended to blame himself for personal losses and tragedies including his guilt of missing his mother’s funeral and depression he ensued after his best friend tragically died from a climbing accident that they did together.
I was reminded by this as the roll-out of Telehealth and the irrational exuberance by many in our profession toward it. On the one hand, we have MacGyver PT’s, using what is necessary during unprecedented times and understanding that this new tool is like a Swiss Knife-able to get the job done and ok is not the enemy of good but understanding it is at best an adjunct and not a replacement or business model.
On the other hand, we have opportunists clearly bored with stay at home orders including:
An email from a “cash-based only” PT who already has converted his entire patient population to Telehealth and is actually now making more money than ever and is offering for a 50% discount for you to join his Mastermind group so you too can learn how to convert your patients and make more money
An advertisement for $750 on how to set up your own Telehealth platform
PT’s actually calling and promoting themselves as Telehealth experts
A healthy twitter conversation in which I participated where all kinds of thoughts were detailed including PT’s espousing Telehealth as a choice, the evidence is on the side of Telehealth and that Telehealth is just like education-can choose to do it online or in-person
PT’s being called out for not adopting Telehealth earlier and even more indicting essentially calling’s Luddites
Other calling out how this opens access to more patients in more remote areas and that there is more to PT than just hands-on care
Other claiming this our future, get used to it (the proverbial “get on the train or get off” argument common in our past).
And yet others claiming it will lower cost (side note, clearly this was Medrisk’s position pre-pandemic but they really mean their cost and thus more profits)
Far more refreshing though PT’s who regularly treat patients are also weighing in, “It sucks”.   The limitations eliminate the essence of a physical exam and testing and what most describe as our critical differentiator- the use 100% of hands-on interventions including the most evidence-based.  This does not mean they won’t be using it post-pandemic, as an adjunct and platform for the right patient, at the right time of their treatment plan at the right dose.  Of course, the Telehealth PT experts and those who paid $750 will simply say the PT’s aren’t doing it right as though Telehealth were a Ouija board.
But, let’s also not forget our patients either since their values and preferences are critical parts of clinical decision making. Simply ask 10 patients if they prefer exclusive PT as Telehealth, blended, or in clinic. Without prompting or biasing, I talked to 15 this weekend and 2 said they would prefer blended and none exclusively. One patient said they preferred hybrid but only if it is after some visits to the clinic or if it was a recurrent problem where they needed reminders and explanation of exercises and self-management.  The other mentioned they would like it because of their travel schedule and they already have a trusting relationship with their PT-they want to keep that relationship exclusive!
Regardless of your position, we can all agree that during this pandemic, necessity is indeed the mother of invention and we can learn new skills and techniques without believing our entire profession is going to be spent finding creative virtual backgrounds on Zoom. We can take a measured approach that involves the use of professional judgment rather than an extreme take in which we try and convince payor or each other that Telehealth mode is interchangeable with clinical #physicaltherapy.
Personally, Telehealth is MacGyver time right now and although we might use this “Swiss Knife” when we return to normal times, we will do so judiciously. Unlike MacGyver though, let’s not feel guilty during losses that we are all invariably going through right now.
Stay safe.
Thoughts?
@physicaltherapy
Note: the opinions expressed here are my own and unaffiliated with and company or group