Ron and all,
While defining expertise for OTs as being "Occupation" seems to fill the
void of a professional identitity crisis. To be an "expert" as a
profession should be more than just about what we "believe in" or what we "hold
dear". These beliefs, values, and assumptions are a philosophical ideology
(Theory) which has great usefulness in forming a professional identity but what
about the role facts and evidence in refining our practices? What if facts and
evidence refute our belief about the use of Occupation in certain
situations?...will we refine our beliefs and practices? Currently it seems as
though practices can neither be fully confirmed or refuted....
When we make these judgements about what is good OT and not-good OT
shouldn't we also have an scientific method of establishing what does work and
refine our practice from that data. Shouldn't all theories be tested and
questioned and proven?...or at least a tendency or trend be established?
Granted it is very hard work to find information that supports and
validates completely certain practices, please steer me in the direction of
some good research and outcomes that shows that Occupation is a powerful tool,
process, method, to achieve functional outcomes....I know that we all believe
in Occupation but is that enough? This kind of information would validate our
practices and confirm us as experts. We are not alone in this
disconnection between theory and objective evidence. The lack of evidence and
science in practice is a problem for not only OT, but PT, MDs, pharmacology and
countless other health-related professions.
It feels good to believe but I want more specifics for my work in Geriatric
Rehab.
Sincerely,
Brent Cheyne OTR/L
--
Options?
www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com
Archive?
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
