Hello Alice:
I spent the other evening re-reading the practice framework. While I think
it represents a major step forward, I don't particularly like it. In
general, it seems to me that AOTA has tried to combine several sources into
one document. I think it might have been best to generate a seminal work.
One of the works they referenced is the the Canadian Model of Occupational
Performance - I wish that AOTA would have adopted the CMOP in its entirety
rather than simply referencing it. The CMOP and the Enabling Occupation
approach to occupational therapy is by far, the best guideline for OT that I
have ever read! Also, I think AOTA has taken a less than direct stand on
occupation as OT's primary focus.
There are several specific concepts and notions in The Framework that I
question. For example:
1. [Our] Expertise lies in ...knowledge of occupation... p. 610
I wonder how many therapists have enough knowledge about occupation
to be considered experts? How many therapists consider themselves
'experts' in occupation?
2. The Framework clearly delineates differences between occupation and
activity. But then goes on to say: "In this document the two term are often
used together to acknowledge their relatedness yet recognize their different
meanings" p.610
This seems like a contradictory information and that AOTA is trying
to appease different audiences. If occupation and activity are
different, regardless of how closely related, then the Framework
should not intermix the terms. I have argued with students and OT
for years that occupation is NOT activity. Now the Framework is
contributing to the confusion. In my opinion, the Framework should
say occupation is this, activity is that. And then stick to it!
3. On page 611, Figure 1 outlines the "Domain of Occupational Therapy".
Throughout The Framework, there is repeated reference to the fact the
engagement in occupation is the reason for treatment. However in reference
to the Domain of Occupational Therapy, The Framework states: "No one aspect
outlined in the domain figure is considered more important than another". p.
611.
Again, this seems like contradictory information. If occupation is
the primary reason for therapy, then in the Domain of Occupational
Therapy, Performance in Areas of Occupation should be more important
than any other domain!
4. The Framework classifies actives of daily living (ADL) and Instrumental
Activities of Daily Living (IADL) as areas of occupation.
ADL and IADL are nursing terms that should have little use in OT's
verbiage. The terms Occupation and ADL are conflicting because
occupation is about client's perceptions of performance while ADL
has nothing to do with client's perceptions. OT's should be about
occupation not about ADL's!!! There have been many complaints over
the years about OT's being seen as ADL people! Now, The Framework
may be contributing to this situation.
to be continued...
=================================================================
On Tuesday, March 30, 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
KA> How do you feel about the Practice Framework; seems the Domain enables and
KA> empowers us to work towards occupation-based treatment through the use of
KA> other type of activity until the client is able to participate in true
KA> occupation. Curious about thoughts on that.
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, visit: http://otnow.com/mailman/listinfo/otlist_otnow.com
The OTnow Mail Archive:
www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
