Is our definition of 'occupation' clearly defined in books (dictionary,
encylopedia) other than OT related?
Kathi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Carson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Incandescent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:47 PM
Subject: Re[2]: Occupation versus function
> Hello Biraj:
>
> Good to hear from you again!
>
> One quick question. If you "re-interpret occupational terminology (or
> functional terminology if you will) in *transparent* terms" is it possible
> that you may be detracting of clients understanding of what OCCUPATIONal
> therapy can do for them?
>
> Seems to me that we need to correlate the name of our profession with what
> it is we do. If what we do is occupation, don't we need to relate
> occupational therapy to occupation? In the long run, are we shooting
> ourselves in the proverbial foot by not taking occupation to the 'street'?
>
> Looking forward to your reply,
>
> Ron
>
>
> ---
> On 7/19/2001 you wrote:
>
> I> Hello All:
>
> I> In my view profession-specific jargon often presents itself as
somewhat
> I> academic at best, and pretentious at worst. Consequently my approach
in
> I> this context takes a dual focus. The overall goal of how I communicate
> I> occupational terminology to others, including professionals, clients
and
> I> other stakeholders, is geared towards educating them as to what my role
> I> (based on their need, diagnoses etc.) as an OT means to them. Given
this
> I> goal I firmly believe that I need to re-interpret occupational
> I> terminology (or functional terminology if you will) in *transparent*
> I> terms so that my clients, professionals I work with, supervisor et al
> I> gain a better appreciation as to what I as an OT can do for them. My
> I> charting is done in exactly the same way. Of course when I communicate
> I> with OT students and/or other OTs I frequently resort to occupational
> I> terminology, and in fact may also prefer to use it, so long as it is
not
> I> cumbersome, or circuitous in terms of the point I wish to make.
>
> I> Thanks,
>
> I> Biraj
>
>
> I> Ron Carson wrote:
>
> >> Do you guys think that our profession should primarily communicate to
other professionals, reimbursers and
> >> among ourselves using occupational terminology or functional
terminology.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >> ********************
> >>
> >> Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the
message's body, put the following text:
> >>
> >> unsubscribe OTlist
> >>
> >> ------
> >>
> >> OTnow messages are archived at:
> >>
> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] (and)
> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
> >>
> >> ********rC***********
>
> I> ********************
>
> I> Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the
message's body, put the following text:
>
> I> unsubscribe OTlist
>
> I> ------
>
> I> OTnow messages are archived at:
>
> I> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] (and)
> I> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
>
> I> ********rC***********
>
> ********************
>
> Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's
body, put the following text:
>
> unsubscribe OTlist
>
> ------
>
> OTnow messages are archived at:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] (and)
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
>
> ********rC***********
>
>
********************
Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's body, put
the following text:
unsubscribe OTlist
------
OTnow messages are archived at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] (and)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
********rC***********
