Board debates whether OTs are 'first responders' and directs ad hoc committee to continue work, schedules April meeting

The California Board of Occupational Therapy discussed its ad hoc Disaster Preparedness and Response Committee during its March 6 meeting, directing the group to keep working on definitions and outreach and scheduling a follow-up meeting for April 16 at 9 a.m., to be held online. The board heard input from committee members, an academic expert and public commenters about whether occupational therapists (OTs) should be treated as first responders or as disaster-response support personnel.

Board President Beata Morcos opened the item by summarizing recent committee activity and the board’s intention to vet a draft survey of practitioners’ disaster roles. Richard Bookwalter, ad hoc committee chair, said the committee gathered 182 survey responses, reviewed definitions for “first responder” across agencies and invited external experts to the January meeting. Emily Abelow, a professor at Rutgers University who joined the committee meeting, described agency-by-agency differences in how “first responder” and “emergency response provider” are defined and advised caution before assigning the label to occupational therapy broadly. Board members and public commenters described situations where OTs provided on‑the‑ground supports (for example, shelter operations, caregiver training, transition support for long‑term‑care residents) and contrasted that role with the traditional expectations for firefighters, paramedics and EMTs.

Committee members and public speakers described the distinction between primary emergency response (triage, immediate rescue) and secondary or support roles (environmental adaptation in shelters, mental‑health support, adaptive equipment and caregiver training). Mary Everett (committee participant) and others cited examples of OTs filling important roles in shelters and long‑term‑care transitions after disasters; several board members said that, while OTs often provide crucial services in disaster settings, it is not obvious they are the “first” clinical responder in most events.

The board directed committee staff to: (1) consult definitions used by federal (Department of Homeland Security) and state emergency entities and the California disaster health care deployment guidance; (2) consider a shorter, targeted follow‑up survey that asks whether licensees were actually deployed in recent disasters, what tasks they performed, and whether they felt prepared; (3) pursue outreach to professional associations, including the Occupational Therapy Association of California (OTEC), and to advocacy groups; and (4) invite Emily Abelow back for the April session. Public commenter Ada Boone Horrell (COTA program director, Sacramento City College) volunteered and was added to the committee during the meeting.

Board members and commenters stressed the consumer‑protection rationale for clarifying roles: a clearly defined scope helps emergency planners, employers and consumers understand when and how OTs can be deployed, and whether special training or credentials are needed. The committee will present its next steps and any recommended stakeholder language at its April 16 meeting, so the board can consider whether to pursue formal positions or regulatory changes.

The board did not adopt new regulations at this meeting; it voted to schedule the committee’s next meeting and to continue gathering information.