I have been an OT for five years now, in two states. I always understood that slings are not effective for prevention or treatment of subluxed shoulder and only contribute to non use and abnormal gait patterns. I recently moved jobs to a different area, and am seeing slings used quite often, perscribed by OT's, including transfers from area hospitals, and by the other OT I work with. Did I miss the most recent data on this, or are they behind the times? Please help!! Any articles or research to back up the use of slings appreciated!
Suzanne >From: Vickie Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: FIM - OT/ PT and who gets there first >Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:08:19 -0500 > >Incandescent wrote: > > > > Well said Greg. I look forward to such future discussions. > > > > Best, > > > > Biraj > > > > McNeely wrote: > > > > > Thank you Biraj. I get very dizzy with tail chasing so I will not >further > > > this particular discussion. > > > > > > I look forward to future issues that you and I will address together >to > > > improve over-all healthcare. > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Incandescent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:37 PM > > > Subject: Re: FIM - OT/ PT and who gets there first > > > > > > > Greg and others who responded to my post: > > > > > > > > My post was NOT asking Greg to apologize. It simply expressed an >opinion > > > of the > > > > tone of his post, most specifically where it said, "By the way, my > > > questions > > > > are not rhetorical. They are meant to challenge your reasoning and >I do > > > expect > > > > answers aout of common decency and for the integrity of this >discussion. > > > I have > > > > repeated questions I asked you that you left unanswered so you have >the > > > > opportunity to tackle them head-on.". The reason I thought it was >rude is > > > > because it presents the writer as patronizing and supercilious and >the > > > person > > > > being addressed as someone who is being spoken down to. If I were >to take > > > the > > > > tone that Vickie Patterson recommends in her post when she states, >"I'm so > > > tired > > > > of being PC or being careful what I say, lest someone's feelings be >hurt. > > > Be > > > > adult, take what is said, learn from it, get over yourself and go >ahead > > > on." In > > > > that case perhaps I would simply be writing something to the effect >"Cut > > > the > > > > crap man" and get it over with. If this is how we see ourselves as > > > interacting > > > > on a listserv then I would ask Vickie to lead by example. Doesn't >seem > > > like > > > > such a good idea now, does it. Incidentally, I bristle at the whole >idea > > > of > > > > being PC because I think it is pretentious, and puts the onus on > > > correcting > > > > problems superficially, rather than addressing underlying and >complex > > > issues. > > > > > > > > My apology to David was NOT made on behalf of Greg, but simply to >call > > > attention > > > > to the fact that as a listserv member I was not party to the tone >the post > > > > took. At the same time, if I didn't say this before I enjoyed the >content > > > of > > > > Greg's post, and the discussion thread in question. > > > > > > > > I am with Ann on discussing things in an "open, honest way". But I >also > > > believe > > > > that the same rules apply here on the internet that apply in >everyday > > > life. If > > > > in everyday interaction anyone were to tell another person that >(s)he was > > > being > > > > given the opportunity to tackle issues, or that their questions were >to > > > > challenge someone's reasoning. It would be reasonable to conclude >that > > > the > > > > person being addressed was somehow lacking in opportunities to >tackle > > > issues, or > > > > that their reasoning was deficient such that it needed challenging >by the > > > > speaker. These implications made the tone of Greg's post personal >in its > > > > impact, and seemed to be talking down to David and thus - rude. >This was > > > the > > > > underlying and basic point of my post to Greg. > > > > > > > > As for Greg's characterization of my post being rude, well if I am > > > considered > > > > rude for calling attention to an issue of common courtesy - then so >be it. > > > > However, I don't consider myself to be a self-effacing Canadian who >is all > > > > "nicey nice" or anything along those lines. In any case >generalizations > > > about > > > > behaviour along national lines are an over generalization by any >standard. > > > As > > > > for vigourous debate, I am all for it. However, I tend to shy away >from > > > it here > > > > on the listserv because I have done so over the years, and find some >of > > > the > > > > issues that emerge are often the same ones that were discussed >before in > > > some > > > > form (even as far back as three years ago) on which I wrote quite > > > vociferously, > > > > but now find I don't have the time to do so to the same extent as >before. > > > > > > > > Hope that clarifies my position. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Biraj > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > McNeely wrote: > > > > > > > > > Biraj, I appreciate your feedback, however I do not apologize for >my > > > post. > > > > > As Canadians, I think we do not deal well with vigourous debate. >We > > > must be > > > > > able to disagree and to express that disagreement without wasting > > > copious > > > > > amounts time gingerly and indirectly avoiding a point we are >trying to > > > make. > > > > > > > > > > Rude? I think you are demonstrating to our American friends one of >our > > > main > > > > > collective strengths and flaws. As I said above, vigourous debate >is > > > not > > > > > rude. It is healthy and necessary. We must communicate directly >and > > > not > > > > > expect people to interpret our implications correctly. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I do believ it is expected that we will answer each others > > > questions or > > > > > directly explain why we are not. Yes, I couched my demand for >answers > > > to > > > > > unanswered questions with a provocative term to elicit a response. > They > > > > > were serious and fundamental questions that were essential to the > > > > > discussion. If they were not answered out of a simple debate >strategy > > > of > > > > > letting them fall aside and be forgotten, the I challenged that >head on. > > > > > David is obviously a very intelligent person and he rose to the > > > occasion, > > > > > which I expressed my respect for and appreciation of. > > > > > > > > > > I take no offense to your post, but I will say that it was at >least as > > > > > "rude" as mine. Thank you for that. Decorum and short term >courtesy, > > > to > > > > > me, is a close second to truth and resolution of problems. > > > > > > > > > > I once had a classmate who had to come late to a class when I was > > > studying > > > > > Carpentry (not OT). He sat down beside me and asked what the >teacher > > > was > > > > > talking about. I said I wasn't sure. He replied "and your >sitting here > > > > > like a dummy and not asking". That was pretty rude of him to say, >but > > > he > > > > > was exactly right. I was wasting my valuable time by not asking a > > > necessary > > > > > question. That situation has helped me to obtain clarity when > > > necessary. > > > > > As human we make mistakes and employ unpolished dialogue >sometimes. To > > > > > remove a tumour, often an incision must be made. The incision in > > > isolation > > > > > is extremely threatening/damaging, but in context it far outweighs >the > > > > > damage caused by the tumour. (David, I am not saying your post >was > > > > > cancerous by the way.) > > > > > > > > > > If I am wrong, rude or otherwise, I will apologize, I have no > > > misconceptions > > > > > about being perfect. But if my writing style offends you, I >guess you > > > > > probably shouldn't read them. > > > > > > > > > > With regard to your apology. David seems to be a pretty capable >and > > > > > understanding of a vigourous exchange of ideas. I won't presume >to try > > > to > > > > > dictate what you should do about your apology. Feel free to >apologize > > > on my > > > > > behalf anytime. Sometimes I mess up badly enough that I feel I do >need > > > more > > > > > than me to apologize for my foolishness. Perhaps the next time I >say > > > > > something stupid that offends my wife I could call you to >apologize on > > > my > > > > > behalf as well? As a matter of fact, would you mind sendin me >something > > > > > typewritten that expresses your sincere apology on my behalf with >your > > > > > signature on it, but leave the reason blank so I can photocopy it >and > > > use it > > > > > on various occasions that I may make mistakes. > > > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Incandescent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:02 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: FIM - OT/ PT and who gets there first > > > > > > > > > > > Hello All: > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been an extremely interesting discussion thread and I >am > > > really > > > > > glad > > > > > > that David (Dr. Lehman) has been contributing to it from a PT > > > perspective. > > > > > > However, and I say this with due respect to Greg - in my >opinion the > > > tone > > > > > of > > > > > > his long post was extremely sharp, and if I may say so quite >rude. > > > > > Perhaps it > > > > > > is just me, but as someone who has been on this and other >listservs > > > for > > > > > some > > > > > > time now I don't think anyone is obligated to respond to each >and > > > every > > > > > aspect > > > > > > of someone's posting. And even if a response is required I >don't > > > think > > > > > the > > > > > > person seeking answers or responses need couch it in terms of an > > > > > expectation of > > > > > > common decency. I think we are all entitled to disagree with >others > > > > > points of > > > > > > view, regardless whether they are OTs, PTs or whoever it may be. > But > > > I > > > > > don't > > > > > > think we need to attack anyone and chastise them for not >responding to > > > our > > > > > post > > > > > > in every detail. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think David has been extremely gracious in his reply to Greg's >post. > > > > > > Certainly, I am no authority on netiquette, but I did feel >offended > > > > > reading > > > > > > Greg's post and for this reason I would like to apologize to >David, > > > and > > > > > want him > > > > > > to know that his opinions are valued and respected, whether I >agree > > > with > > > > > them or > > > > > > not is altogether a different matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > At the same time I would like to say that I do not mean any >offense to > > > > > Greg > > > > > > either, however I am calling it as I see it. Hope you won't >mind this > > > > > feedback > > > > > > Greg. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Biraj Khosla > > > > > > OT - Reg. - (Ont.) > > > > > > Canada > > > > > > > > > > *********��*********** > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > *********��*********** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *********��*********** > > > > > > 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] > > > > *********��*********** > > >"Communicating directly", as ObeWan Kanobi suggested, >email communication is best done SHORT and SWEET. That is the whole >point of electronic communication; quickly. > >Writing dissertations on a listserve that no one reads is pointless. > >No wonder one gets 'dizzy' with the communication format of , > >You said.... >Then I said.... >And, I was like, "Whatever!"..... > >Cut the crap, man and go to the bar to discuss lengthy matters over a >beer. > >Otherwise, keep it simple...... > >*********��*********** > >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] > >*********��*********** _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com *********��*********** 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] *********��***********
