THE HEATED DEBATE: Should Occupational Therapists be ACVREP Certified?
If you’re an Occupational Therapist (OT) or a Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialist (COMS), chances are you’ve heard the buzz, or or even felt it directly. The question that’s causing a stir? Should OTs be allowed to teach Orientation and Mobility (O&M) skills? And if they are, should they be required to get ACVREP (Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals) certification?
Let’s be real, the stakes feel high. For COMS, this might feel like the start of a takeover. For OTs, it could feel like a long-overdue expansion of skills. Either way, there’s a lot to unpack
Let’s start with the WHY?
Why is there a debate around this?
For years, Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialists (COMS) have been the primary experts for teaching individuals with visual impairments how to navigate the world safely and independently. But let’s be honest—many Occupational Therapists are already incorporating aspects of mobility training into their work.
So why now? The push for ACVREP certification for OTs comes at a time when the demand for O&M services is skyrocketing, especially among adults and aging populations. With only about 3,000 certified O&M specialists in the U.S., compared to 144,000 occupational therapists, there’s a major service gap.
This growing need has led some to question whether OTs should step in to fill the void. Others fear that opening the door for OTs, even with certification, could water down the specialized training that O&M specialists bring to the field.
The reality is, the profession of O&M is facing challenges. With limited specialists available, waitlists for services continue to grow, leaving adults and children with visual impairments without timely support. This has sparked questions about whether expanding the pool of qualified professionals might solve the problem, or create new ones.
So here’s the dilemma:
Should OTs be allowed to formally teach O&M skills?
Or should OTs have to jump through more hoops, like earning ACVREP certification, to prove they’re qualified?
Will this collaboration improve access to services or create confusion about roles and responsibilities?
This isn’t just a technical debate. It’s about protecting professional identities, ensuring quality care, and deciding whether collaboration or competition will define the future of vision rehabilitation.
Now, here’s the WHAT.
What questions should you be asking?
Do OTs need ACVREP certification to teach O&M?
Based on the proposed changes, OTs would need additional certification to teach O&M skills. This certification process involves mentorship, exams, and professional development, ensuring they’re adequately trained. However, some argue that OTs already have foundational knowledge and may not need this extra step, while others emphasize that certification is crucial to maintain quality and consistency.
Does certification create obstacles?
Certification requirements could pose barriers for OTs due to time, cost, and availability of training programs. On the flip side, proponents see this as a necessary step to ensure that OTs are held to the same high standards as COMS.
Could this actually expand opportunities?
Yes, certification could open new doors for OTs, allowing them to step into specialized roles that address unmet needs, particularly for adults. It could also help COMS focus on more complex cases while OTs handle foundational skills.
How will this affect clients?
If implemented thoughtfully, it could increase access to services, especially for underserved populations. However, critics worry that unclear boundaries between roles might lead to inconsistencies in care.
What happens to COMS?
Instead of being replaced, COMS may need to evolve into leadership and training roles, mentoring OTs and ensuring best practices are upheld. This shift could also highlight the value of COMS expertise and elevate their professional standing.
Is this about collaboration or competition?
Ideally, this change fosters collaboration, enabling COMS and OTs to complement each other’s skills and serve more clients effectively. But the fear of competition—and potential job losses—remains a concern for many specialists.
What Does This Mean for the Future?
We’re not just talking about job titles; we’re talking about the future of Occupational Therapy and Orientation and Mobility as professions. With 2025 approaching, change is on the horizon, and OTs may soon face decisions about specialization and certification requirements.
For COMS, this could mean stepping up as leaders and trainers—not just service providers. For OTs, it’s an invitation to expand their reach and impact. And for clients, it could mean access to more services, faster.
But let’s be honest—the idea of change feels scary. It challenges the way we’ve always done things. And when fear creeps in, it’s easy to feel territorial.
The question is: What if this change actually helps us grow?
This debate isn’t just about rules and regulations, it’s about real people, real clients, and real careers. Are you an OT considering certification? A COMS concerned about professional boundaries? Or someone caught somewhere in between?
We want to hear from you! 💬 Drop your thoughts in the comments!
Topics: Should Occupational Therapists be ACVREP Certified, Occupational Therapy, Occupational Therapists, ACVREP Certification, Orientation and Mobility, Orientation and Mobility Specialists, mobility skills, visually impaired, learners with visual impairment, low vision, blind, ACVREP, orientation and mobility training, career, O and M, teacher, teacher skills