Joe, that book changed my practice. The book was part of the human occupation course that I developed and taught at the U. of St. Augustine. It was a required text for students!
I just recently put my Enabling Occupation PowerPoint class presentation up on the Internet at: www.otnow.com/resources <Password required> The presentation is just a primer to the book but maybe it will promote more OT's to buy the text. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subj: [OTlist] Vote NO on Motion 1 JW> Hi Ron, Terrianne and others: JW> Thank you for clarifying that you are in favor to retain the basic sciences JW> and do advocate more of it. JW> I agree that if the Motion is written the way it is, we will be limiting JW> ourselves to just UE rehab when our practice acts and OT Practice Framework JW> allows for a broad, all encompassing practice. For entry-level, I do believe JW> that OTs should have a broad knowledge of the whole body and not just UEs, JW> and then move on to specialization if they wish to. JW> Ron, thank you for recommending the book. I read it a few years ago. I think JW> this should be a part of our curriculum. I love the book. JW> Joe JW> -----Original Message----- JW> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf JW> Of Ron Carson JW> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:23 AM JW> To: Joe Wells JW> Subject: [OTlist] Vote NO on Motion 1 JW> Hello Joe and Others: JW> Terrianne is right. I am not asserting that basic sciences have no place JW> in our education. In fact, I am 100% confident that we need MORE basic JW> science, but not focused on the UE (Upper Extremity). JW> My primary contentions with Motion 1 are: JW> 1) It is authored by 3 CHT's. (Certified Hand Therapist) JW> a. I am not against CHT, but I do not think they should JW> represent general entry-level education. JW> b. They are specialized in the UE so don't represent LE anatomy. JW> Which is where I think OT's need much more training! JW> 2) The language of Motion 1 indicates that increased sciences are needed JW> for UE Rehab JW> a. Obviously, I do not believe that UE rehab should be the JW> primary role of general physical disability rehab JW> 3) The Motion asserts that OT will "retain and strengthen our presence JW> in these practice areas by providing science-driven OT services." JW> a. This is no doubt true. But I do NOT believe that OT will ever JW> successfully compete with PT by focusing our treatment on the JW> UE. (And yes, PT services is one of our competitors) JW> The bottom line is that I am 100% opposed to the profession of OT JW> becoming further identified as upper extremity experts. All of us JW> working in phsy-dys know that this is the way that most of us practice JW> anyway. In fact, it is already the way many, many OT programs train JW> their students. It is the way I was trained in and it is the way the JW> University I taught at trained students. JW> This Motion moves OT away from occupation (which categorically includes JW> UE and LE) towards UE rehab (which categorically denies the LE). JW> I also want to clarify that occupation-focused treatment may include UE JW> rehab, but UE rehab does not include occupation. JW> As a reference to my treatment philosophy, I HIGHLY recommend the JW> following book: JW> "Enabling Occupation: An Occupational Therapy Perspective" JW> Thanks, JW> JW> Ron Carson MHS, OT JW> www.otnow.com/motion1 JW> ----- Original Message ----- JW> From: Joe Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JW> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 JW> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> JW> Subj: [OTlist] More Thoughts on Motion-1 JW>> Hi Ron: JW>> Personally, I do not agree with RA Motion- 1, but can not completely JW> oppose JW>> it either. I believe it is incomplete, and needs some corrections/ JW>> clarifications. I feel that OT education must include basic sciences JW> 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 JW> 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 JW> works JW>> either (while working with physical disabilities). How do we use JW> exercise as JW>> "means" to facilitate occupation without actually knowing what JW> 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, JW> 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 JW> 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 JW> 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 JW> should JW>> stop teaching (or requiring as pre-requisites) basic clinical sciences JW> such JW>> as anatomy, physiology, biomechanics/ kinesiology, pathology, etc.. The JW> 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 JW> 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 JW> in JW>> the future. Also, I fear that defeating the motion altogether (if it JW> means JW>> excluding the sciences) may cause insurance companies/ states (e.g. JW>> California) to seek special certification in use of PAM, or further JW> still to JW>> do other procedures commonly used in physical rehab (how do we do JW>> therapeutic exercises, manual therapies, orthotic management without JW> having JW>> a knowledge of the body structures/ functions)? Please note that JW> 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 JW> service, JW>> is paid via CPT codes or similar procedural codes that address it either JW> 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 JW> majority JW>> of the procedures listed under "physical medicine and rehab" codes, JW> e.g., JW>> therapeutic exercises, therapeutic activities, any of the modality JW> codes, JW>> etc.. We need to ensure that we have all "tools" available to us and JW> that we JW>> are competent in the use of such tools. JW>> However, I agree that we do not need “advanced” education but JW> appropriate JW>> “basic- level” education for competent entry-level “general” practice. JW>> Advanced education/ training such as the “CHT” are specializations. This JW> is JW>> true for all fields- PT, MD, DO, DDS, etc. MD’s do not learn advance JW> 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 JW> 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 JW> for JW>> competent entry-level practice in physical rehab (from the motion, it JW> would JW>> seem that we do not have a standard for one already). JW>> Joe Wells, OTD, OTR/L JW> -- JW> Options? JW> www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com JW> Archive? JW> www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] JW> No virus found in this incoming message. JW> Checked by AVG Free Edition. JW> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1329 - Release Date: 3/14/2008 JW> 12:33 PM JW> JW> No virus found in this outgoing message. JW> Checked by AVG. JW> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1329 - Release Date: 3/14/2008 JW> 12:33 PM JW> -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
