Hello Dana: I don't necessarily disagree with all you say but I do NOT think that as a professional organization, we market ourselves as being UE experts. AOTA's web site, state practice acts, etc talk about meaningful activity, function, ADL's, etc, they don't talk about neurological and musculoskeletal impairments as the primary focus of our concern. And yet, on the practice front, we practice as if we are UE experts in physical medicine.
I am not a social occupational therapist, I am an occupational therapist. I try to do what it is the professional organization says we do. I don't exclude biophysical from my practice area, but it's not the reason for my treatment. I think we can spend many e-mail discussing what it is we do, but let me ask you a question; "When you receive a client referral, how do you know if that client is appropriate for OT treatment?" With regard to focusing on both ends of the continuum, I don't think that's a viable option. I believe that as a profession, we must identify which end from which we want to operate. As far as I can tell, we will NEVER be seen as orthopedic experts because that market is already full. However, the market for expertise in occupation is wide open and all we need do is step through the door. Yesterday, I received a hospice referral for a woman with bilateral upper extremity tightness. The therapy director told me that she thought of me first but that either an OT or PT could go. I told the director that if the primary complaint is upper extremity tightness then she should send a PT. Now, some OT's think I'm crazy, but I think it's the right choice. I don't want to receive referrals because of UE problems, I want referrals because of occupational problems. Ron ============================================ On 10/1/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: DL> Ron, DL> You're what I call a "Social Occupational Therapist," the OT version of DL> a Social Psychologist. The other type of psychologist is the DL> BioPsychologist. In my opinion, there is a tremendous lack of "Bio DL> Occupational Therapists." In essense, the difference is studying the DL> field at a Macro vs. Micro Level. This has been a deep debate in the DL> Philosophy of Science. Which is better? Which is necessary? The answer DL> is both. DL> Imagine what psychology would be if purists took over. The entire field DL> would be doing psychoanalysis. What made Psychology such a booming field DL> is that they expanded their scope of research and practice... So much so DL> that there is an entire medical specialty (Psychiatry, obviously) based DL> on Biopsychology. DL> Here's what it comes down to... You want to focus on Occupation DL> (Macrolevel)... But occupation is accomplished through micro-level DL> processes (e.g., UE strength). IMHO, if OT wants to grow, it will need DL> to be thoroughly knowledgeable at both micro and macro levels. What will DL> distinguish us from PT is that we can (and will hopefully) focus our DL> efforts at both levels while PT focuses on only the micro level. DL> Just my opinion. DL> Dana DL> On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:03:52 -0400, Ron Carson wrote: >>Today, �in �my �human occupation class, I spent a solid hour >>discussing >>occupational �performance as it relates to role competence. The >>theory, >>as � written � in �Christiansen �and �Baum's, �"Enabling �Function >>and >>Well-being", �is �that �humans �engage �in �occupation �in �order to >>be >>competent �at �their �roles. �And that role competence is a >>fundamental >>drive �of �healthy humans. The point of the lecture is to help >>students >>begin �to �gather �some �understanding of the necessity, complexity >>and >>depth of enabling occupation in their future clients. >> >>At �the �completion �of �class, �a �student �held �up a poster that >>was >>requesting �volunteers �or �announcing a presentation or something. >>The >>research and poster were about UE Muscle Strength. I asked the >>students >>if �they �were �confused by this dichotomy that we had just had a >>class >>about �human �occupation �and �why �OT �should �not �be �practiced >>like >>upper-extremity PT and then to be doing research on UE function. >> >>One �student �responded �that �it �was �confusing and the other >>student >>seemed �confused. �And �frankly, I'm confused!! It seems like some >>OT's >>see �UE function as our trademark practice pattern while other OT's >>see >>occupation �as �our �trademark. �I �am �confused by this situation, >>can >>anyone help?????? >> >>Thanks, >> >>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] >> >>*********��*********** >> >> DL> Dana Levinson DL> Rehab Science, Inc. DL> http://www.rehabscience.com/ DL> [EMAIL PROTECTED] DL> *********��*********** DL> Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] DL> In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist DL> ** List messages are archived at: DL> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] DL> *********��*********** *********��*********** 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] *********��***********
