I teach entry level students in OT to generate hypotheses that link participation 
problems in areas of occupation to underlying client factors, performance skills, 
performance patterns, context, that may be compromising optimal performance, etc., 
using the new framework.  However, they begin from a client-centered perspective, that 
is, what does the client view as concerns. Perhaps, being entirely physically 
independent is not the client's goal. That way, students look at the concerns from a 
multi-dimensional perspective, not just the biological issues.  The educational 
challenge for us is that many practicing clinicians, who supervise students in the 
field, operate primarily from the biological perspective.  The students don't find 
many holistic role models out in practice in so-called traditional settings.
> ----------
> From:         Ron Carson
> Reply To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent:         Thursday, June 27, 2002 4:59 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:      Framing the Problem
> 
> Here's another interesting thought, maybe.
> 
> If the symptoms of a person with a stroke are put on a continuum, one
> possible example might be:
> 
> 
> |- High cholesterol ->Stroke event ->Impairments ->Disability ->Handicap -|
> 
> The  above  shows that the client had high cholesterol which eventually
> caused  a stroke, leaving the patient with impairments, preventing them
> from  caring  for  themselves,  being  productive or having fun (i.e. a
> disability)  and  thus  keeping them from fulfilling their social roles
> (i.e. handicap).
> 
> The  above continuum is very vague. You can fill in the categories with
> whatever fits. For example, 'impairments' might include:
> 
>          -decreased balance
>          -decreased range of motion
>          -increase pain, etc
> 
> Disability might include:
> 
>            -inability to dress
>            -inability to eat
>            -inability to bathe, etc
> 
> 
> Now, here's a question. Based on the above example, what exactly is the
> 'problem'  with  this  hypothetical client?
> 
> In  reality, most people can tell that there are really many 'problems'
> and issues associated with the client's current condition.
> 
> Each  profession  involved with this client, will see 'problems' from a
> different  primary  perspective.  For  example, a dietitian may see the
> primary  'problem'  as the clients poor nutritional habits; the surgeon
> will  see  the  arterial  plaque  buildup as the primary 'problem', the
> primary  care  physician  may  see  the  actual  stroke  event  as  the
> 'problem'.  While  each profession does not categorically exclude other
> professions' concerns, each profession has a PRIMARY domain of concern.
> Anything  outside  of this domain may be considered adjunctive or 'nice
> to  know'  information  but  is  certainly  not  going to be evaluated,
> treated and considered as part of that profession's outcome.
> 
> Where  does OT fit on the above continuum? In other words, ow might the
> OT  profession  define  the 'problems' with this client? Is the primary
> 'problem'  that  the  client  may  not be able to move their hand, arm,
> foot?  Or  is  the primary 'problem' that the client may not be able to
> brush  their  teeth,  drive  their  car  or  go  to  work  (or whatever
> disability the client's experiencing)?
> 
> It  appears to me that as a profession, we articulate that the client's
> disability  (i.e.  occupational  deficits)  are the primary 'problems'.
> However,  much  of  what  I  read and witness indicates that many, many
> practitioners  are  not practicing within primary domain. Instead, they
> are practicing from an impairment perspective which say's that the loss
> of  range  of  motion,  strength,  coordination,  etc  are  the primary
> 'problems'.
> 
> While  some may argue that my stamens are just rhetoric, I believe that
> they  may  hold  some  merit  in understanding different experiences of> 
> practitioners, students and educators. For how the 'problem' is defined
> dictates both the nature of treatment and the desired outcome.
> 
> So,  how  SHOULD  the  profession  frame  the  'problem'  and  how  ARE
> practitioners  actually framing the 'problem'? If the two are different
> is  this a problem? What can or should be done about this? Should I get
> a life and quit worry about this? <grin>
> 
> Ron
> 
> *********��***********
> 
> Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist
> 
> ** List messages are archived at:
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
> 
> *********��***********
> 
> 
> 

*********��***********

Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist

** List messages are archived at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

*********��***********

Reply via email to