No abstract

This viewpoint proposes eight anatomy threshold concepts related to physical therapist education, considering both movement system theory and anatomical competence. Movement system theory provides classifications and terminology that succinctly identifies and describes physical therapy practice from a theoretical and philosophical framework. The cardiovascular, pulmonary, endocrine, integumentary, nervous, and musculoskeletal systems are all included within this schema as the movement system theory encompasses all body systems interacting to create movement across the lifespan. Implementing movement system theory requires an ability to use human anatomy in physical therapist education and practice. Understanding the human body is a mandatory prerequisite for effective diagnosis, assessment, treatment, and patient evaluation. Anatomical competence refers to the ability to apply anatomic knowledge within the appropriate professional and clinical contexts. Exploring the required anatomical concepts for competent entry‐level physical therapist education and clinical practice is warranted. The recommended threshold concepts (fluency, dimensionality, adaptability, connectivity, complexity, stability or homeostasis, progression or development, and humanity) could serve as an integral and long‐awaited tool for guiding anatomy educators in physical therapy education.

Background and Objectives Gross anatomy guidelines and recommendations are available for pre‐clinical medical faculty, however there is no consensus regarding anatomy student learning objectives for physical therapist education (PTE) programs. The Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) requirements for gross anatomic content are vague and leave room for misinterpretation. This results in varied anatomical curricular content among PTE programs at different institutions. Faculty, whether seasoned or new, can benefit from guidelines and recommendations when making decisions during curricular reform or when prioritizing and emphasizing anatomic content for the curriculum. As such, developing recommended anatomy objectives to serve as a curricular guide may foster more consistent student outcomes, while preserving instructional autonomy. Position and Rationale Anatomy faculty in PTE, who may or may not be physical therapists, would benefit from evidence‐based, objective, and consensus‐driven curricular recommendations to ensure that the most appropriate and clinically relevant anatomy is taught. Anatomy course content is often chosen as the material core faculty (which may or may not include anatomists) deem most important. Importance may be determined due to prior training, personal experience, and pedagogical views of anatomy content. Since all students must pass the same licensure exam, determining the key anatomy content for PTE will promote consistency and reduce ambiguity among faculty. Recommendations must also allow for instructional and programmatic autonomy. Method Similar to the approach used to create anatomy learning objectives published by the Education Affairs Committee of AAA for pre‐clinical medical students, we suggest that anatomic content be identified, collaboratively vetted by basic science faculty and clinicians, affirmed, and recommended for adoption. Involvement of members in key professional organizations, such as the Anatomy Education Special Interest Group of the American Physical Therapy’s Academy of Physical Therapist Education, the American Association for Anatomy, and the American Association of Clinical Anatomists is paramount. Discussion and Conclusion We are advocating for collaboration amongst anatomy faculty in PTE to create specific and measurable anatomy learning objectives, guidelines, and recommendations that are peer‐reviewed and evaluated by both educators and clinicians, and that reflect a global consensus.