I agree, Lisa. I was taught, both in school and on the job, that a  
goal should include what you are improving and what the functional  
outcome of that improvement will be. That doesn't mean that the  
treatment I do will be an exercise routine to improve strength (though  
sometimes it is). It does mean that the goal reflects what is  
improving in order to meet the functional outcome.
I don't consider that PT.
Mary Alice

Mary Alice Cafiero
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
972-757-3733
Fax 888-708-8683

This message, including any attachments, may include confidential,  
privileged and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this  
communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is  
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the recipient  
of this message, please notify the sender and permanently delete the  
message from your system.


On Aug 31, 2008, at 8:09 AM, L Sloan wrote:

> Sorry Ron...I totally disagree...in my 20 years I have always  
> included ROM, pain with function....that is how I was  
> trained...maybe school has changed since then........to me the ROM  
> and pain has everything to do with the function...I have always  
> assessed it when doing an evaluation...that is part of my assessment  
> as sensation is, coordination, cognition etc.  I do not consider  
> that PT....
> Lisa
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ron Carson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: L Sloan <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 7:09:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [OTlist] Elbow Break, Referral...
>
> If  the  goal  is  increased  ROM  or  decreased pain, why include the
> "functional"  component?  It  seems obvious to me that if ROM/pain are
> the  ONLY  things  preventing  the  patient from doing self-care, then
> positively  impacting  these area will directly improve self-care. So,
> why even include the the "function".
>
> If  the  goal  is  occupation,  then  I see no reason for the ROM/pain
> component. As and OT, I strongly believe that occupation should be the
> goal,  but occupation is not always the goal of the patient or MD. And
> it's  these situations where OT is out on a limb, because we are truly
> practicing OT, but PT.
>
> Ron
> --
> Ron Carson MHS, OT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: L Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008
> To:  [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subj: [OTlist] Elbow Break, Referral...
>
> LS> How About....
> LS> Patient will demonstrate increased active range of motion to ____
> LS> during upper and lower body dressing activities.....or...
> LS> Patient will demonstrate increased AROM to ___ to allow patient
> LS> to complete upper and lower body selfcare activities safely...
> LS> Patient will demonstrate a decrease in pain from ___ to ___ to
> LS> enable her to complete her dressing activities.
> LS> ??? Lisa
>
>
>
> LS> ----- Original Message ----
> LS> From: Ron Carson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> LS> To: OTlist <[email protected]>
> LS> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:48:47 PM
> LS> Subject: [OTlist] Elbow Break, Referral...
>
> LS> Received  a  new referral for a elbow fracture. I shouldn't have  
> taken
> LS> it but I did.
>
> LS> And  here  is  the  dilemma  facing our profession. The patient  
> is 95,
> LS> previously living independently. Fractured elbow in a fall. Now  
> living
> LS> with  daughter.  She  is  in a large amount of pain. Obviously,  
> she is
> LS> dependent  for  most of her occupations. She currently uses a  
> cane but
> LS> is not safe.
>
> LS> The  patient's  immediate concerns are her elbow. When pressed,  
> she of
> LS> course wants to go back home, but that is not an immediate goal.
>
> LS> So what do I write for goals? For example should I write:
>
> LS>         Patient will self-report pain as 3 out of 10
>
> LS>         Patient's will increase active elbow extension to -20  
> degrees
>
>
> LS> These  goals seem to direct the patients and doctor's concerns  
> but are
> LS> not occupationally oriented. So, should I write:
>
>
> LS>         Patient will safely and independently dress lower body
>
> LS>         Patient  will safely and independently ambulate to the  
> bathroom
> LS>         using the least restrictive mobility aid
>
> LS> I like these goals but they don't address the immediate concerns.
>
> LS> Ron
> LS> --
> LS> Ron Carson MHS, OT
>
>
> LS> --
> LS> Options?
> LS> www..otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com
>
> LS> Archive?
> LS> www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
>
>
>
> LS>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Options?
> www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com
>
> Archive?
> www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Options?
> www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com
>
> Archive?
> www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

-- 
Options?
www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com

Archive?
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

Reply via email to