There are 2 largely competing models for an athletics organization at both the collegiate and professional levels: the high-performance model and the medical model. The high-performance model (Figure 1) largely arises from an international football perspective that places a "performance director" at the center of teams consisting of athletic training staff, physical therapists, medical director, and strength and conditioning, sports nutrition, and sport psychology staff, and in direct communication with the sport coaches and operations staff.1 In contrast, the medical model separates off medical staff (athletic trainers [ATs] and physicians, predominantly) and emphasizes the autonomy of medical decisions, and is designed to minimize potential conflicts of interest that could adversely affect athlete health.2 Although the high-performance model is the predominate framework used internationally and in some professional organizations in the United States, the medical model has been strongly advocated by both the National Athletic Trainers` Association and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.2,3 Although the medical model has legal benefits and potential benefits to AT caseload, it also creates a clear "medical silo" that has pitfalls both for the performance and health of individual athletes within the organization and for the athletic training profession as a whole.
© Copyright 2024 Journal of Athletic Training. National Athletic Trainers' Association. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.