1.1 Definition and Practice of Physical Therapy

Definition and Practice of Physical Therapy

The starting point for Arizona jurisprudence is the wording of A.R.S. § 32-2001, not a job description from an employer or a professional association. The statute separates the service called physical therapy from the acts included in the practice of physical therapy. A question may test that distinction by describing a task that is familiar in a clinic but asking whether the law assigns it to a physical therapist, permits delegation, or places it outside the chapter.

Two connected definitions

Physical therapy is the care and services provided by or under the direction and supervision of a physical therapist licensed under the chapter. Practice of physical therapy is broader. Under § 32-2001(13), it includes:

• examining, evaluating and testing people with mechanical, physiological and developmental impairments, functional limitations and disabilities;
• determining a physical therapy diagnosis, prognosis and plan of therapeutic intervention, and assessing the ongoing effects of intervention;
• alleviating impairments and functional limitations through therapeutic exercise, functional training, manual therapy, assistive and adaptive devices, airway-clearance techniques, integumentary repair and protection, debridement and wound care, physical agents, mechanical or electrotherapeutic modalities, and patient-related instruction;
• reducing risk of injury, impairment, functional limitation and disability, including promoting fitness, health and quality of life; and
• administration, consultation, education and research.

The word diagnosis is expressly present in the current practice definition. Do not import the obsolete claim that Arizona law prohibits a PT from making any diagnosis. The safe exam distinction is scope based: the PT determines the physical therapy diagnosis and must not perform acts reserved to another licensed profession. A clinical label does not expand the physical therapy scope.

Direct access is paired with a duty to refer

Arizona law does not state a general requirement for a physician referral before a human patient receives physical therapy. That is why Arizona is commonly described as a direct-access state. Direct access is not permission to ignore warning signs. A.R.S. § 32-2041(A) requires referral to the appropriate health care practitioner when the PT has reasonable cause to believe symptoms or conditions require services beyond physical therapy scope or physical therapy is contraindicated. The same section requires adherence to the recognized standards of ethics and compliance with the chapter and rules.

A useful sequence for a scenario is: screen, decide whether the condition is within scope, refer when the statutory threshold is met, and document the reasoning and communication. The trigger is reasonable cause, not a preset number of visits and not whether the patient first arrived with a referral.

Musculoskeletal imaging

Under A.R.S. § 32-2041.01, a PT may order musculoskeletal imaging consisting of plain-film radiographs. The PT does not personally perform or interpret the radiograph merely because the PT ordered it. An appropriately authorized health care practitioner performs the imaging, and a physician licensed under the specified Arizona medical chapters and trained in radiology interpretation interprets it. The PT must report the results to the patient's practitioner of record or referring practitioner, if one is designated, within seven days after receiving the results. If no such practitioner exists and the results create reasonable cause to believe services beyond PT scope may be required, the PT refers appropriately.

Do not enlarge this authority to CT, MRI, medication prescribing or surgery. The statute names plain-film radiographs. Conversely, do not apply an old blanket rule that PTs may never order ionizing imaging.

Exam application

Ask three questions when classifying conduct:

1. Is the act listed in the statutory practice definition?
2. Is it reserved to the PT, or may it be selected and delegated under the supervision rules?
3. Has the information created reasonable cause for referral or made physical therapy contraindicated?

A PT who evaluates a patient without a referral is not automatically violating the Act. A PT who recognizes signs beyond scope but continues without appropriate referral may be. A PT who orders an allowed plain-film study must still comply with the performance, interpretation and reporting safeguards.

Official anchors

• A.R.S. § 32-2001 — Definitions
• A.R.S. § 32-2041 — Lawful practice
• A.R.S. § 32-2041.01 — Musculoskeletal imaging

Cross-rule drill: imaging and referral

Suppose a direct-access patient has persistent focal bone pain after trauma. The PT may examine and decide that a plain-film musculoskeletal radiograph is appropriate. Ordering the study is within § 32-2041.01; exposing the film and issuing the physician interpretation are not. After receiving the interpreted result, the PT reports it to the designated practitioner within seven days. If there is no practitioner of record and the information suggests care beyond PT scope, the PT makes the referral. This sequence tests three distinct duties and shows why “direct access” is never the same as “practice without limits.”

The intervention list is similarly bounded. Manual therapy includes graded forces and mobilization/manipulation techniques described by the statute, while wound care includes debridement. Those inclusions do not eliminate competence, informed-consent, documentation, or referral duties. When two answers describe familiar clinical techniques, choose the answer that also respects the role and safeguard supplied by the Act.