I've been spinning this "record" for 10+ years and I'm not about to stop now! <smile>
I also want to add that I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with OT's addressing physical limitation. Like you said, we are shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot if we stop treating physical limitations. However, I have two "buts" to add this statement: But 1: OT must NOT address ONLY upper extremity physical function. As occupational experts, we MUST learn to address the musculoskeltal function of all extremities. I'm not sure about the spine, but definately we must address the LE. But 2: OT must NOT address physical function for the sake of physical function. That is what PT does. OT's must address physical function from an "empowering occupation" perspective. In other words, OT's ONLY address physical function when improving occupation is the WRITTEN GOAL of treatment and a specific physical function is a CLEARLY identified barrier to a SPECIFIC occupation. For example, if my UE eval had stated something like: "You know, I spill food with my left hand and I can't get my right elbow to bend far enough to get food in my mouth and I so want to eat with my right hand!" Then, Bam! we have a SPECIFIC occupation that is clearly limited by physical function. However, OT's must not "coerce" or draw parallels between ABSTRACT occupational goals and physical barriers. Goals must be identified by the patient, often with the help of the OT. After all, goals should state what's important to the PATIENT, not what's important to the therapist, or the referring MD. If it's not important to the patient, then I don't think OT should be addressing it in therapy. Again, that should be a hallmark difference between OT and other professions. Ron -- Ron Carson MHS, OT ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subj: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? cac> I agree with the delineation provided by Ron.? As OTs though, we cac> need not be afraid to address the physical limitation that is a cac> barrier to the person's occupational profile.? Funny how we spend cac> 100s of dollars a year on continuuing education that mainly focus cac> on the impairment level, also I might add that these courses are cac> usually endorsed by AOTA.?Funny how AOTA has this article called cac> the practice framwork in which the restoration of?client factors cac> a) body functions b) body structures is clearly outlined. cac> I think the UE/LE divide has evolved out of professional cac> courtesy over the years mainly in the relm of outpatient cac> clinics.? I would have no objections for a PT to treat a UE/hand cac> if they are skilled to do so.? I would have no objections for an cac> OT to treat the LE if they are skilled to do so (I have?seldom cac> heard of this happening though).? I think the complexeties of the cac> of body functions and structures are large enough that both cac> disciplines should share in the workload of research and cac> treatment.? Again, I strongly believe that to stop treating the cac> UE would be professional suicide for Occupational Therapy, as Ron cac> is unfortunately experiencing firsthand in his quest to become an cac> "occupation as an only?means" therapist. cac> Is this record player broken?? I keep hearing the same song over and over again.? Smile! cac> Chris Nahrwold MS, OTR cac> -----Original Message----- cac> From: Ron Carson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cac> To: [email protected] cac> Sent: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 4:47 pm cac> Subject: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? cac> Our most recent discussion leads me to ask this question: cac> Can you CLEARLY delineate the role between PT and OT? cac> My Answer: cac> PT is most indicated when the FOCUS of concern (by referral cac> source and/or patient) is on body parts or body processes. OT cac> is most indicated when the FOCUS of concern is on human cac> occupation. cac> Ron -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
