Thanks Ron. In a message dated 11/26/03 6:12:39 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hello Jody: > > I like your observations. I want to add that I might make climbing a ladder > an OT goal if the client needed to climb a ladder to engage in an > occupation. In the following example, keep in mind that a vocation is a type > of occupation. According to the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance, > a vocation is an example of an occupation falling into the productivity > category. > > Example - If a client needed to climb a ladder in order to perform his > vocation of painting, then painting would be the long-term goal and climbing > a ladder would be the short-term goal. > > And like you stated, if painting was the clients long-term goal and he was > unable to achieve the short-term goal of climbing the ladder, we would look > at alternative ways to complete the painting, such as extended handles. > > The above example is for years what I tried to get students to understand. > It's a 'framing the problem' approach to being an OT. I am firmly convinced > that when an OT looks a client, they should see a different set of > "problems" than any other profession. > > Ron > > > > ================================================= > Monday, November 24, 2003, 8:22:04 PM, you wrote: > > Sac> But David, those weren't Ron's words, they were the words of Judy Yeh < > Sac> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Ron is a bit too much of a purist for me but > I will > Sac> defend him this time. I am sure Ron would agree that climbing a > ladder would be a > Sac> PT goal. The only time I think Ron would make it an OT goal was if I > derive > Sac> my identity from my occupation as an apple picker and now I cannot > climb a > Sac> ladder so I have an occupational disorder. And even then he might > explore other > Sac> ways I could fulfill my occupational identity other than getting on a > ladder, > Sac> such as an adaptive device to grab the apples while I am on the ground. > Sac> -- Jody Van Ness OT > > > Sac> In a message dated 11/24/03 9:25:09 AM Central Standard Time, > Sac> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > >> Ron...I cannot believe you made this interpretation in your last post: > >> > >> " In any case, it seems to me that occupational therapy is called just > >> that because of its focus on activity, compared to, say, physical > >> therapy. A physical therapist would help a victim of a car accident > >> regain muscle tone in his or her legs and the ability to walk, but an > >> occupational therapist would teach the person how to climb a ladder, how > >> to go up and down stairs, etc." . . . > >> > >> I would think that a higher level thinking PT would be able to take > their > >> client to "that next step". . . . > >> > >> Peace brother > >> > >> > >> > >> David A. Lehman, PhD, PT > >> > > Sac> _______________________________________________ > Sac> To unsubscribe, visit: > Sac> http://otnow.com/mailman/listinfo/otlist_otnow.com > > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, visit: http://otnow.com/mailman/listinfo/otlist_otnow.com The OTnow Mail Archive: www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ===============================================
