Hi Ron, Terrianne and others: Thank you for clarifying that you are in favor to retain the basic sciences and do advocate more of it.
I agree that if the Motion is written the way it is, we will be limiting ourselves to just UE rehab when our practice acts and OT Practice Framework allows for a broad, all encompassing practice. For entry-level, I do believe that OTs should have a broad knowledge of the whole body and not just UEs, and then move on to specialization if they wish to. Ron, thank you for recommending the book. I read it a few years ago. I think this should be a part of our curriculum. I love the book. Joe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Carson Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:23 AM To: Joe Wells Subject: [OTlist] Vote NO on Motion 1 Hello Joe and Others: Terrianne is right. I am not asserting that basic sciences have no place in our education. In fact, I am 100% confident that we need MORE basic science, but not focused on the UE (Upper Extremity). My primary contentions with Motion 1 are: 1) It is authored by 3 CHT's. (Certified Hand Therapist) a. I am not against CHT, but I do not think they should represent general entry-level education. b. They are specialized in the UE so don't represent LE anatomy. Which is where I think OT's need much more training! 2) The language of Motion 1 indicates that increased sciences are needed for UE Rehab a. Obviously, I do not believe that UE rehab should be the primary role of general physical disability rehab 3) The Motion asserts that OT will "retain and strengthen our presence in these practice areas by providing science-driven OT services." a. This is no doubt true. But I do NOT believe that OT will ever successfully compete with PT by focusing our treatment on the UE. (And yes, PT services is one of our competitors) The bottom line is that I am 100% opposed to the profession of OT becoming further identified as upper extremity experts. All of us working in phsy-dys know that this is the way that most of us practice anyway. In fact, it is already the way many, many OT programs train their students. It is the way I was trained in and it is the way the University I taught at trained students. This Motion moves OT away from occupation (which categorically includes UE and LE) towards UE rehab (which categorically denies the LE). I also want to clarify that occupation-focused treatment may include UE rehab, but UE rehab does not include occupation. As a reference to my treatment philosophy, I HIGHLY recommend the following book: "Enabling Occupation: An Occupational Therapy Perspective" Thanks, Ron Carson MHS, OT www.otnow.com/motion1 ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subj: [OTlist] More Thoughts on Motion-1 JW> Hi Ron: JW> Personally, I do not agree with RA Motion- 1, but can not completely oppose JW> it either. I believe it is incomplete, and needs some corrections/ JW> clarifications. I feel that OT education must include basic sciences that JW> not only include occupational science but also the "whole body" anatomy/ JW> physiology/ biomechanics and kinesiology versus just for the upper JW> extremities. I thought this was already the case as in my bachelor’s JW> curriculum (’90-’95) did include all but Occupational Science (which I was JW> glad to have later for my OTD) until I saw the motion. I agree that JW> "occupation" is our major domain, but I do not believe that we can truly JW> facilitate that without knowing the basics of how our physical system works JW> either (while working with physical disabilities). How do we use exercise as JW> "means" to facilitate occupation without actually knowing what structures JW> you need to work on? What desired effect is intended? How do the JW> inappropriate use of cones/ dumbbells (that we have either witnessed, heard JW> of, or personally are guilty of doing at times, either in the name of JW> occupation or exercise or human performance or whatever else we personally JW> choose to call them) reflect on our profession’s competence in physical JW> rehab already? Please note: these very same “props”- the cones or dumbbells JW> could very well be used appropriately in our treatments as well. JW> Ron, I hope by opposing this motion you do not mean that OT schools should JW> stop teaching (or requiring as pre-requisites) basic clinical sciences such JW> as anatomy, physiology, biomechanics/ kinesiology, pathology, etc.. The OT JW> Practice Framework states OTs have knowledge of "body structures/ body JW> functions". How do we intend to get this knowledge when we plan to eliminate JW> the required foundation in basic sciences that make us ‘clinicians’? As JW> aspired in our centennial vision, we must be science- driven. Our JW> treatments/ purpose must be strongly founded in science for us to thrive in JW> the future. Also, I fear that defeating the motion altogether (if it means JW> excluding the sciences) may cause insurance companies/ states (e.g. JW> California) to seek special certification in use of PAM, or further still to JW> do other procedures commonly used in physical rehab (how do we do JW> therapeutic exercises, manual therapies, orthotic management without having JW> a knowledge of the body structures/ functions)? Please note that currently JW> under Medicare, Medicaid and other health insurances, "Occupation" as an JW> unique experience by the client, and as an outcome/ product of our service, JW> is paid via CPT codes or similar procedural codes that address it either in JW> a more direct manner, e.g., self-care management training, community JW> reintegration program, or in a rather indirect manner as with the majority JW> of the procedures listed under "physical medicine and rehab" codes, e.g., JW> therapeutic exercises, therapeutic activities, any of the modality codes, JW> etc.. We need to ensure that we have all "tools" available to us and that we JW> are competent in the use of such tools. JW> However, I agree that we do not need “advanced” education but appropriate JW> “basic- level” education for competent entry-level “general” practice. JW> Advanced education/ training such as the “CHT” are specializations. This is JW> true for all fields- PT, MD, DO, DDS, etc. MD’s do not learn advance hand JW> surgical techniques for general practice. We should not seek “advanced” JW> professional expertise with entry-level education. The question then is- JW> does our current curriculum prepare students with adequate skills to enter JW> the field to practice in physical rehab? JW> In my opinion, the motion should be re-written to ensure appropriate JW> curricula is followed in schools pertaining to basic clinical sciences for JW> competent entry-level practice in physical rehab (from the motion, it would JW> seem that we do not have a standard for one already). JW> Joe Wells, OTD, OTR/L -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1329 - Release Date: 3/14/2008 12:33 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1329 - Release Date: 3/14/2008 12:33 PM -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
