I agree Ron and I agree. That is why, I believe that as OTs we look and go beyond the realms of physical dysfn., that's why I say we take the holistic view. My only point is that we do look at the 'mechanistic' issue, too, and often the underlying pathology creates the other issues such as the associated mental/ emotional, resulting environmental barriers, etc., which would have otherwise been an non-issue. Sometimes, taking care of those 'mechanistic' issues helps to eliminate or mitigate the rest, and sometimes they don't. My thoughts are when PTs use the powers of their practice acts, take care of those physical issues, use 'seemingly' OT approaches, they too address occupational issues as much as us......I do not agree, what I feel some OTs are confusing with, that OT does not include or should not include addressing the physical issues.
My own thoughts are that most OTs I have come across, do practice OT with all the tools available to them- true occupations, activities, exercises, PAMs, splints, AEs, etc. etc.. I have met very-very few OTs that are not addressing the occupational needs (barring the quality of how a few document such issues). To me, occupational performance sprites from activity analysis, physical functioning being a part of it- usually the most visible and objective part. Since, in the world arena, OTs are mainly involved in the medical model/ with physical dysfunction issues, OTs should be in tune to be a holistic practitioner in this arena versus taking a reductionistic approach. I do not see the reason why a OT should wait for the UE strength/ ROM to be increased by a PT before beginning dressing training or, why have two disciplines working together in order to achieve the same 'occupational' outcomes for OTs, and 'physical functioning' outcome for PT- the ability to physically dress.The difference again is in semantics, theorized approach and, underlying principle. I believe with no other complicating factors viz. mental issues, emotional issues, etc., PTs and OTs are equally qualified to address this issue, and both disciplines are not needed simultaneously. To me the issue is not that OTs are trying to be PTs, but that we do not understand the power in the word 'occupation' that entails everything a person should or wishes to do per societal or developmentally accepted norms. I believe OTs should not be further confused in the futile issue of what modalities is whose, rather understand the underlying occupational needs that need to taken care of by taking care of the pathology (impairment) if it can be corrected, disability if that can be changed with 'different' ability, and the accomodations required for the handicap..... Ron, it seems you and I agree for the most part. My major contention is that physical functioning is a very true and major part of occupational functioning and, sometimes in cases of physical dysfunctions with no other overtly mental/ emotional/ social dysfunction, may even become inseperable. In such cases too, while OTs are addressing the physical functioning issues directly, they are certainly addressing the occupational goals of their clients (or should be), helping them to 'occupy' their lives in meaningful activities in a pain free, effective, time-sensitive, aesthetic-deligent world. Sorry, just couldn't keep it short. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Carson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Joe Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 2:20 AM Subject: Re[6]: [OTlist] PT does it all!! > Hey Joe: > > For brevity, I've snipped your message. > > The below paragraph is sort of a mechanistic approach to therapy. This > type of approach assumes that by fixing the person's "broken" pieces, > the whole person will be restored. For example, if someone loses the > ability to drive secondary to decreased balance, a mechanistic approach > assumes that by resorting their balance, their ability to drive will > also be restored. While for some cases, this approach may be true, for > others it is just as likely to be false. > > Driving, like ALL occupations, is a complex phenomenon that includes > physical, social, emotional, environmental and mental factors. > Successful engagement in occupation is not dependent on any one factor > but on the culmination of ALL the factors. A therapist that assumes a > mechanistic approach may focus on only the most apparent factors, such > as physical impairment, and thus may miss other factors that are > preventing successful engagement in occupation. > > It is important to assess occupational dysfunction and then to directly > document the dysfunction. If occupation is made the goal, then the > therapist is much more likely to see the whole picture of occupational > performance rather than seeing only the pieces that make up occupation. > > Ron > > > ============================================= > > On 8/30/2003,[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > JW> Obviously, you realize on further interrogation one may ask- what's > JW> the end result (goal) for increased tolerance, increased balance, > JW> decreased pain, decreased stiffness- all would lead to the same > JW> goal- increased occupational independence, whether or not that is > JW> addressed directly on paper. > > > *****************************��********************************** > > To remove yourself from the OTnow mail list, 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] > > *****************************��*********************************** > *****************************��********************************** To remove yourself from the OTnow mail list, 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] *****************************��***********************************
