Hello Joan: It's funny how things sometimes fall into place. Just today, I evaluated an older adult living in an ALF. The referral was secondary to a doctor's report of bilateral rotator cuff injuries. Notice that the referral wasn't for difficulty bathing, eating, dressing, etc.
Anyway, in talking with the client we identified obvious limitations with ROM and she reported quite a bit of pain. BUT, she also stated that she had difficulty obtaining clothes from the closet and reaching items on the dining room table. So, like you said, in listening to the patient, she identified occupational deficits. But, here's the confusing part. If the goal is occupation, then I only need recommend a higher chair/lower dining table and that she place her clothes on a lower shelf. Thus, her occupational performance is restored. Obviously, such recommendations are not warranted but isn't this what you are saying? Instead, shouldn't I address the cause of her occupational limitation which of course are biomechanical in nature. But addressing her biomechanical problems so that she might better complete her occupations is no different than what a PT or in the case you gave, an RT might do. They might not call them occupations but that isn't the point. It seems that looking at these situations kind of leaves OT stuck in a vise. We say we are about occupation but when the rubber hits the road, we are only about occupation as an ancillary byproduct of our therapy. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Joan Riches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subj: [OTlist] Occupation JR> Do you see your clients in their homes? Most people will tell their JR> troubles to an empathetic listener and even if the problem is a JR> 'medical' one the 'troubles' will include the things they are JR> prevented from doing. -- Unsubscribe? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Change options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Help? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
