If I were a high school student, or even a college student contemplating a switch of majors (possibly to OT), or even an OT student in, say, a Level I fieldwork experience reading these postings I think I'd run as fast as I could for the nearest exit.
A few months ago, I was working in the hospital on a weekend. I entered the elevator the same time as a doctor, we were on the elevator alone. We politely nodded to one another. He looked down, saw my ID badge, and said, "OT huh?" "Why would I refer to you instead of, or in addition to, a PT in the acute care orthopedic ward of this hospital?" I swear, I think I heard that cliche choir of angels singing, "Allelujiah" in the background as I grabbed that fortuitous opportunity by the labcoat, using that 30 seconds or so to do some made-to-order, grassroots education on behalf of our profession. By the time that short elevator ride was over, that doctor enthusiastically smiled and issued a hearty, "Thanks!" Undoubtedly, he had a much better, practical understanding of what OT is, and why he should regard us folks walking around with "OT" on our ID badge as much as those with "PT" "SLP" "RT" "RN" "MD" etc., on and on. I do understand the fears of PT, RT, and other players "taking over" our profession. I do understand the need for a unique, marketable niche for our profession going forth. I do understand all the "flailings about" and theoretical banterings about occupation-based practice. But, sometimes a good old-fashioned face to face, sincere, "down and dirty" marketing of who we are to those responsible for getting those patients referred to us goes a long way. Thanks to all who are posting these thoughtful and timely messages on this subject of late. Have a good day. More to come........... Bill Maloney, OTR --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Send OTlist mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, > visit > http://otnow.com/mailman/listinfo/otlist_otnow.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body > 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it > is more specific > than "Re: Contents of OTlist digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Occupation (Joan Riches) > 2. Re: Occupation (Carmen Aguirre) > 3. Re: Occupation (Carmen Aguirre) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:48:50 -0600 > From: "Joan Riches" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [OTlist] Occupation > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > > <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAqpIeEyoaqEeUzXp6QaY++8KAAAAQAAAAic08u/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" > > What do you mean 'such recommendations are not > warranted'? If they are > feasible even on a temporary basis, won't they help? > Did you ask what her > living situation was like? How did she damage her > shoulders? Was it repeated > strain over time, result of a fall, what? Is she > short or tall? Is the rod > in her closet actually too high for her? or is she > trying to reach a higher > shelf? Is a lower shelf available or feasible? > What is it she cannot reach on the table? Can you > help her think about her > living environment and how it might be adapted so > she could manage with less > pain? Does the culture of the Assisted Living > Facility allow her to ask for > help? Is she willing to do so or is she forcing her > shoulders to show she > can manage? Is she cognitively able to understand > consequences in the > future? Are there requirements for independent > abilities to stay there? Is > she afraid of transfer to Long Term Care? What do > you think her prognosis > for biomechanical recovery is? Depending on the > injury sometimes older > people have to adapt to loss of range with rotator > cuff injuries. Is her > medication adequate for pain control? Is she taking > it? Does she understand > about maintaining a therapeutic level? Is there any > reason to be concerned > about the side effects of medication? Does she get > up to go to the bathroom > in the night? Is her way lighted? > I assume that when a doctor refers to OT it is > because that is what is > expected. The reason OT is needed may be an injury > but the physician expects > us to mitigate to the best of our ability and with > all the resources we can > muster the occupational effects of that injury. Of > course they don't refer > for difficulty in ADLs they don't assess for the > practical consequences of > injury but they certainly expect us to do so. > Try to let go of your semantic preoccupation with > occupation. Look at > people and ask yourself and them what they want, > need or are expected to do > and what you know that may help them. You'll find > you are writing notes > about restored occupation. (normal life - thanks > Carmen) Stop telling > yourself that there is nothing you can do that isn't > PT and just do it. > Joan (with some irritation) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Ron Carson > > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:21 PM > > To: Joan Riches > > Subject: Re: [OTlist] Occupation > > > > 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] > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.6/324 - > Release Date: 4/25/2006 > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.6/324 - > Release Date: 4/25/2006 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:54:29 -0600 > From: "Carmen Aguirre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [OTlist] Occupation > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Maybe the disconnect is more setting-specific Vs. a > generalized problem. > I work in Sub-acute-SNF/LTC; the referrals are > biomechanical and medical in nature ( underlying > impairments per our old terminology); we immediately > make the correlation for the client re: occupational > self performance, and use occupationally relevant > assessments/activities to either > restore/compensate/adapt and discharge to prior > living environment. I don't do PT treatments when I > use modalities to help alleviate pain so my client > can proceed to cook/bake a cake; I don't do PT just > because I am using spasticity-inhibiting techniques > with their hand/wrist/shoulder to facilitate > dressing at end of session. I have to address these > anatomical/physiological factors to maximize > self-performance. Why isn't that occupational > therapy. I feel that I'm missing your point...I just > don't get your conflict with Occupation. Help > carmen > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ron Carson<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Carmen Aguirre<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 6:00 PM > Subject: Re: [OTlist] Occupation > > > Yes, we see a dentist because of the toothache, > not so we can eat corn > on the cob! We call the electrician because we > have an electrical short, > not so we can watch TV. We take our care to a > mechanic because it's > broken, not so we can drive to a movie. > > We call an OT because because we can't wash our > feet.... > > Now, who thinks of OT like that?? NO ONE, well > almost no one! > > About the only time that I hear mention of OT > (keep in mind that I work > in an outpatient private practice setting) is > for fine motor, UE, and > cognition. Once, I had a referral from a > chiropractor to do a home > safety assessment for his Dad, also a > chiropractor. But by far, OT is > normally referred to for anything OTHER than > occupation. And that's a > problem! > > In my opinion, we MUST: > > 1. Change our message > > 2. Change our delivery > > 3. Or a combination of the two > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Carmen Aguirre > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subj: [OTlist] Occupation > > CA> Ron... > CA> When we get sick, have a tooth ache, bleeding, > etc we seek a > CA> doctor to stop/cure/remediate the cause in > order to restore "normal" > CA> life (occupation). Why would it be different > for patients who need > CA> our services...I truly don't see the > dis-articulation. Help? > CA> Carmen > CA> ----- Original Message ----- > CA> From: Ron > Carson<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > CA> To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > CA> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:17 AM > CA> Subject: Re: [OTlist] Occupation > > > CA> Yes, I agree 100% with your statement. BUT > most patients that I see are > CA> not at the point of compensation. And > besides, I don't think that > CA> compensation is really a big part of > medicine. I just can't see me going > CA> to a doctor and saying; > > CA> " If you have any patients who can't > use their arms, hands, legs, > CA> etc. then send them to me so I can > teach them how to compensate" > > CA> Maybe this SHOULD be the role of OT > but it is one role that in my > CA> opinion is not highly promoted, practiced > or warranted for many of our > CA> patients. > > CA> Ron > > CA> ----- Original Message ----- > CA> From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > CA> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> > CA> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 > CA> To: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > CA> > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > CA> Subj: [OTlist] Occupation > > CA> Enrc> Ok - I understand what you're saying, > but let's just say that it was > CA> Enrc> not possible that this person receive > a lens replacement and everything > CA> Enrc> did not get better and the problem > could not be fixed. In this case, > CA> Enrc> occupation and compensation WOULD come > to the forefront, no? > > CA> Enrc> ----- Original Message ----- > CA> Enrc> From: Ron Carson > CA> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> > CA> Enrc> Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:34 > am > CA> Enrc> Subject: [OTlist] Occupation > CA> Enrc> To: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > CA> >> Hello All: > CA> >> > CA> >> Recently Biraj pointed out that I: > CA> >> > CA> >> > always championed and advocated, > very strongly I might > CA> >> add,> occupation-based practice but > now it seems [I am] > CA> >> extremely> disappointed of anything the > term has to do with in the > CA> >> OT profession. > CA> >> > CA> >> Biraj is correct about my past > vocalizations but today I don't > CA> >> feel that > CA> >> I am disappointed about occupation. > I still feel the same > CA> >> aboutoccupation but I think that I > am becoming a bit jaded > CA> >> at trying to > CA> >> integrate occupation into my private > practice. You see, > CA> >> occupation is > CA> >> important, it's important to ALL of > us, but what I am > CA> >> discovering is > CA> >> that treating occupational deficits > does not fit well with my > CA> >> clientsbecause clients don't consider > occupational deficits to be > CA> >> the problem. > CA> >> Here's a non-OT story to make my > point. > CA> >> > CA> >> Recently, someone I know was > diagnosed with cataracts. The > CA> >> cataractsaffected his vision to the point > that modifications were > CA> >> needed to read, > CA> >> work and play. Now, what do you think > this person saw as the > CA> >> problem;cataracts or occupations. > Obviously, the impact on his > CA> >> occupation is > CA> >> what brought the cataracts to the > forefront and motivated him to > CA> >> seek a > CA> >> lens replacement, but cataracts are > the problem, not the > CA> >> loss of > CA> >> occupation. So, the person received a > lens replacement and > CA> >> everything is > CA> >> getting better. Well, how does this > 'story' apply to OT. > CA> >> > CA> >> Simple, our clients are seeking > answers to problems. They want > CA> >> theseproblems fixed. But the problems > are not occupation, the > CA> >> problems are > CA> >> things like weakness, loss of balance, > developmental delay, > CA> >> depression,etc. Clients see these > 'components' as the problem and > CA> >> this is what they > CA> >> expect their therapist to address. This > is the way the entire > CA> >> world of > CA> >> medicine works and for OT to be any > different just doesn't work. > CA> >> > CA> >> What I think needs to be done is for > our patients to recognize > CA> >> loss of > CA> >> occupation as the primary problem. Then, > they recognize the need > CA> >> for an > CA> >> occupational therapist. And as far as I > can tell, the ONLY way > CA> >> that this > CA> >> is going to happen on a large > scale is for AOTA to put > CA> >> together a > CA> >> NATIONAL ad campaign directed at > educating people about > CA> >> occupation and > CA> >> thus occupational therapy. > CA> >> > CA> >> Finally, there are settings were > occupation is the concern but > CA> >> about the > CA> >> only one that I know of is > long-term mental health. And > CA> >> given that > CA> >> therapeutic occupation is rooted in > mental health, this makes > CA> >> perfectsense. But for the majority > of OT's working in the US, > CA> >> I think that > CA> >> trying to integrate occupation as our > main form and outcome is > CA> >> a lost > CA> >> battle, unless patients are > EDUCATED, INTEGRATE and > CA> >> EXPERIENCEoccupation-based therapy. > CA> >> > CA> >> Ron > CA> >> > CA> >> > CA> >> > CA> >> > CA> >> -- > CA> >> Unsubscribe? > CA> >> > CA> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > CA> >> > CA> >> Change options? > CA> >> > CA> > www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com>> > CA> >> > CA> >> Archive? > CA> >> > CA> > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>> > CA> >> > CA> >> Help? > CA> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > CA> >> > > > > CA> -- > CA> Unsubscribe? > CA> > CA> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > CA> Change options? > CA> > CA> > www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com>> > > CA> Archive? > CA> > CA> > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>> > > CA> Help? > CA> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > -- > Unsubscribe? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Change options? > > www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com> > > > Archive? > > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> > > Help? > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:02:20 -0600 > From: "Carmen Aguirre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [OTlist] Occupation > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Isn't the occupational relevance implied in the > visit to the dentist?. I obviously can not eat > because when I do, It hurts...therefore, I go to > the dentist to get rid of the pain...I already know > how to eat ...If all my teeth have to come out...the > dentists comes up with compensatory appliances to > help me perform the function of eating... > I see the OT to help me use my hand in a coordinated > manner so I can write...I know how to do it if I > could make my fingers work...The limitation is the > contracted hand or hyper/hypo-tonicity, etc; yet the > implication of why I want it corrected is there... > keep it coming! > Carmen > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ron Carson<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Carmen Aguirre<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 6:00 PM > Subject: Re: [OTlist] Occupation > > > Yes, we see a dentist because of the toothache, > not so we can eat corn > on the cob! We call the electrician because we > have an electrical short, > not so we can watch TV. We take our care to a > mechanic because it's > broken, not so we can drive to a movie. > > We call an OT because because we can't wash our > feet.... > > Now, who thinks of OT like that?? NO ONE, well > almost no one! > > About the only time that I hear mention of OT > (keep in mind that I work > in an outpatient private practice setting) is > for fine motor, UE, and > cognition. Once, I had a referral from a > chiropractor to do a home > safety assessment for his Dad, also a > chiropractor. But by far, OT is > normally referred to for anything OTHER than > occupation. And that's a > problem! > > In my opinion, we MUST: > > 1. Change our message > > 2. Change our delivery > > 3. Or a combination of the two > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Carmen Aguirre > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subj: [OTlist] Occupation > > CA> Ron... > CA> When we get sick, have a tooth ache, bleeding, > etc we seek a > CA> doctor to stop/cure/remediate the cause in > order to restore "normal" > CA> life (occupation). Why would it be different > for patients who need > CA> our services...I truly don't see the > dis-articulation. Help? > CA> Carmen > CA> ----- Original Message ----- > CA> From: Ron > Carson<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > CA> To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > CA> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:17 AM > CA> Subject: Re: [OTlist] Occupation > > > CA> Yes, I agree 100% with your statement. BUT > most patients that I see are > CA> not at the point of compensation. And > besides, I don't think that > CA> compensation is really a big part of > medicine. I just can't see me going > CA> to a doctor and saying; > > CA> " If you have any patients who can't > use their arms, hands, legs, > CA> etc. then send them to me so I can > teach them how to compensate" > > CA> Maybe this SHOULD be the role of OT > but it is one role that in my > CA> opinion is not highly promoted, practiced > or warranted for many of our > CA> patients. > > CA> Ron > > CA> ----- Original Message ----- > CA> From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > CA> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> > CA> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 > CA> To: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > CA> > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > CA> Subj: [OTlist] Occupation > > CA> Enrc> Ok - I understand what you're saying, > but let's just say that it was > CA> Enrc> not possible that this person receive > a lens replacement and everything > CA> Enrc> did not get better and the problem > could not be fixed. In this case, > CA> Enrc> occupation and compensation WOULD come > to the forefront, no? > > CA> Enrc> ----- Original Message ----- > CA> Enrc> From: Ron Carson > CA> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> > CA> Enrc> Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:34 > am > CA> Enrc> Subject: [OTlist] Occupation > CA> Enrc> To: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > CA> >> Hello All: > CA> >> > CA> >> Recently Biraj pointed out that I: > CA> >> > CA> >> > always championed and advocated, > very strongly I might > CA> >> add,> occupation-based practice but > now it seems [I am] > CA> >> extremely> disappointed of anything the > term has to do with in the > CA> >> OT profession. > CA> >> > CA> >> Biraj is correct about my past > vocalizations but today I don't > CA> >> feel that > CA> >> I am disappointed about occupation. > I still feel the same > CA> >> aboutoccupation but I think that I > am becoming a bit jaded > CA> >> at trying to > CA> >> integrate occupation into my private > practice. You see, > CA> >> occupation is > CA> >> important, it's important to ALL of > us, but what I am > CA> >> discovering is > CA> >> that treating occupational deficits > does not fit well with my > CA> >> clientsbecause clients don't consider > occupational deficits to be > CA> >> the problem. > CA> >> Here's a non-OT story to make my > point. > CA> >> > CA> >> Recently, someone I know was > diagnosed with cataracts. The > CA> >> cataractsaffected his vision to the point > that modifications were > CA> >> needed to read, > CA> >> work and play. Now, what do you think > this person saw as the > CA> >> problem;cataracts or occupations. > Obviously, the impact on his > CA> >> occupation is > CA> >> what brought the cataracts to the > forefront and motivated him to > CA> >> seek a > CA> >> lens replacement, but cataracts are > the problem, not the > CA> >> loss of > CA> >> occupation. So, the person received a > lens replacement and > CA> >> everything is > CA> >> getting better. Well, how does this > 'story' apply to OT. > CA> >> > CA> >> Simple, our clients are seeking > answers to problems. They want > CA> >> theseproblems fixed. But the problems > are not occupation, the > CA> >> problems are > CA> >> things like weakness, loss of balance, > developmental delay, > CA> >> depression,etc. Clients see these > 'components' as the problem and > CA> >> this is what they > CA> >> expect their therapist to address. This > is the way the entire > CA> >> world of > CA> >> medicine works and for OT to be any > different just doesn't work. > CA> >> > CA> >> What I think needs to be done is for > our patients to recognize > CA> >> loss of > CA> >> occupation as the primary problem. Then, > they recognize the need > CA> >> for an > CA> >> occupational therapist. And as far as I > can tell, the ONLY way > CA> >> that this > CA> >> is going to happen on a large > scale is for AOTA to put > CA> >> together a > CA> >> NATIONAL ad campaign directed at > educating people about > CA> >> occupation and > CA> >> thus occupational therapy. > CA> >> > CA> >> Finally, there are settings were > occupation is the concern but > CA> >> about the > CA> >> only one that I know of is > long-term mental health. And > CA> >> given that > CA> >> therapeutic occupation is rooted in > mental health, this makes > CA> >> perfectsense. But for the majority > of OT's working in the US, > CA> >> I think that > CA> >> trying to integrate occupation as our > main form and outcome is > CA> >> a lost > CA> >> battle, unless patients are > EDUCATED, INTEGRATE and > CA> >> EXPERIENCEoccupation-based therapy. > CA> >> > CA> >> Ron > CA> >> > CA> >> > CA> >> > CA> >> > CA> >> -- > CA> >> Unsubscribe? > CA> >> > CA> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > CA> >> > CA> >> Change options? > CA> >> > CA> > www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com>> > CA> >> > CA> >> Archive? > CA> >> > CA> > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>> > CA> >> > CA> >> Help? > CA> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > CA> >> > > > > CA> -- > CA> Unsubscribe? > CA> > CA> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > CA> Change options? > CA> > CA> > www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com>> > > CA> Archive? > CA> > CA> > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>> > > CA> Help? > CA> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > -- > Unsubscribe? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Change options? > > www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com<http://www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com> > > > Archive? > > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> > > Help? > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > ------------------------------ > > -- > Unsubscribe? > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Change options? > www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com > > Archive? > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > Help? > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > End of OTlist Digest, Vol 15, Issue 23 > ************************************** > -- Unsubscribe? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Change options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Help? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
