Unfortunately, I don't have time to read through all the posts on this subject at this very moment, but I do want to comment because this topic comes up oh so often in my practice. I work with the elderly & my focus is generally low vision, but I do PRN at several CCRCs. There aren't enough fingers and toes to count the number of times a client is quite disheartened about all the 'exercises' they have been prescribed by PT & they have significant motivational issues with follow through when they are left on their own to perform these exercises; especially once d/c'd from PT caseload. This is where I often come in because they are still experiencing difficulty with ADL/IADL and often general functional mobility. Trying to make it as short and sweet as possible to keep their interest/attention, I ask them to tell me or show me the exercises they are to perform. For example, one client was doing lots of LE to strengthen her legs (as is common). We went over the exercises briefly, then I took her over to her carpeted steps. With her husband in tow, I had her slowly step up on the first step and pointed out each exercise motion as she moved. Suddenly the exercises made sense. We went through a few other IADL's such as doing laundry & filling/emptying the dishwasher; with each movement that corresponded to one of her exercises, I pointed it out. THIS is what we do as OTs, or at least should be. If clients can work their musculoskeletal system through their occupations vs. exercises; then why aren't we having them do this and pointing out how the two relate! Not that exercises aren't useful, but when we have a client with limited endurance & energy throughout the day, why not build their exercises into their occupations instead of isolating them? We as OT's know how to do this. I've only met 1 PT that was able to do this, and this was after we teamed up over many treatments. We make this stuff meaningful and useful. As OT's we plug all this stuff into the routines of their lives; bridging between the exercises & functional activities into occupations. We just need to articulate this, or better yet, show what we are talking about as we work with a client. Okay, that's my 2 cents for now.
Deann L. Bayerl, MS OTR/L -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: OTlist Digest, Vol 43, Issue 27 Send OTlist mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://otnow.com/mailman/listinfo/otlist_otnow.com or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of OTlist digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? (Lehman, David) 2. Re: Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? (Ron Carson) 3. Re: Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? (pat) 4. Re: We've Already Backed Oursleves Into a Corner! (pat) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:42:51 -0500 From: "Lehman, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I also think this is an awesome approach to research. I am interested, Sue, in what your design is. I also feel there are variables concerning the clients emotional, spiritual, psychological, personality that can be masured and added to the multifactorial equation. Are you familiar with Structural Equation Modeling? This is a multifactorial design that allows you to creat a theoretical model with any and all variables and it can determine not only the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable, but, also the impact of independent variables on each other. It also allows for quantitative and qualitative observations. That said, it is way above my head, but, I am trying to learn it. I feel we do not have enough science that looks at the multifactorial contributions to an outcome or dysfunction, and yet, we go an do research isolating one treatment variable against one dependent variable, and if we get significant results, then we say our treatment works. This is so faulty. We must first isolate all the variables we consider affecting the dependent measure and decide on our treatments after all interactions have been considered. That said, I really would like to hear more about your research and design. Regards, david David A. Lehman, PhD, PT Associate Professor Tennessee State University Department of Physical Therapy 3500 John A. Merritt Blvd. Nashville, TN 37209 615-963-5946 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my website: http://www.tnstate.edu/interior.asp?mid=2410&ptid=1 This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information and is intended solely for use by the individual to whom it is addressed. If you receive this correspondence in error, please notify the sender and delete the email from your system. Do not disclose its contents with others. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neal Luther Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:35 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? I think your research is incredibly valuable both to us as a profession and ultimately to the communities we serve. Here's why. I'll use one of the areas your research is focused--interpersonal expressions of caring. Often the aged/elderly population have lost so many meaningful expressions of "life and love" that bathing themselves is completely irrelevant. But holding that grand baby in their arms and rocking them to sleep... now, suddenly that same person is alive with meaningful occupation. The problem is (as always) third party payers could care less. And I believe they could not care less because we (OT's) have not demonstrated to them the value of this occupation and how it impacts this persons ability to stay engaged...maybe even stay home longer...maybe even have carry effect to other areas of personal self care. Keep it up! Neal C. Luther,OTR/L Rehab Program Coordinator Advanced Home Care 1-336-878-8824 xt 3205 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Care is our Business...Caring is our Specialty The information contained in this electronic document from Advanced Home Care is privileged and confidential information intended for the sole use of [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the person listed above and discard the original.-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sue Doyle Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 11:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? Just another idea from my OT researcher mind. I have been observing stroke patients for many years. Many patients can function well to complete their basic self care tasks one handed. The meaning of having both arms able to function well goes beyond the basic self care tasks we tend to focus on. The concepts of communication (how many of us talk with our hands), self esteem and sense of social acceptance (not being seen as disfigured or disabled), and interpersonal expressions of caring (eg hugs etc) are ones that I am currently observing as strong dissatisfiers for clients post stroke who have otherwise mastered basic self care but are still unhappy with their current performance levels or the upper extremity function. I am currently designing a research study to further investigate these concepts. But where does that take us as OTs with treatment? Just to spin the record at a slightly different speed. Sue> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:26:59 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]> Subject: Re: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT?> > If I evaluated a CVA patient (new or old) and they were unable to> identify occupation goals, they I would d/c them. Recommending PT> might or might not be indicated.> > No, I do not think we should use "common sense" to coerce goals.> Occupational goals are not about your or me, they are about a> patient's perceived needs and values. Just because we think something> is important, that is no indication that a patient will agree.> Especially were patients face catastrophic loss of occupation. What we> value may be meaningless to our patients. Thus, using a "common sense"> approach can create more harm than good and leave patient's feeling> utterly frustrated.> > On the other hand, a skilled OT may need to enlighten a patient as to> the realities of life with a CVA. Often this is done during the eval,> either through questioning or actual performance. After a> comprehensive occupation-based evaluation, it's is my opinion and> experience that an OT has a very good understanding of a patient's> concerns and thus their motives.> > I think a LOT of OT success lies in the timing of our services. If> patients are not willing or able to focus on occupation then our> success in improving occupation may be greatly diminished. However,> when patients are focused on lost occupation, and in the hands of a> skilled occupation-based OT, improvement in occupation performance is> almost guaranteed.> > 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> What should an OT do if the patient identifies that they want to> cac> be able to look to the left (attention?=body?function)?because of> cac> a right CVA?to their parietal lobe (body structure)?? They> cac> unfortunately do no personally state any occupations that they> cac> want to address in particular.? Should we pass the patient to> cac> physical therapy or should we "coerce" a few occupational goals?through common sense?> > cac> Chris Nahrwold MS, OTR> > > cac> -----Original Message-----> cac> From: Ron Carson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> cac> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[email protected]>> cac> Sent: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 7:59 pm> cac> Subject: Re: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT?> > > > cac> I've been spinning this "record" for 10+ years and I'm not about to> cac> stop now! <smile>> > cac> I also want to add that I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with OT's> cac> addressing physical limitation. Like you said, we are shooting> cac> ourselves in the proverbial foot if we stop treating physical> cac> limitations. However, I have two "buts" to add this statement:> > cac> But 1: OT must NOT address ONLY upper extremity physical function. As> cac> occupational experts, we MUST learn to address the musculoskeltal> cac> function of all extremities. I'm not sure about the spine, but> cac> definately we must address the LE.> > cac> But 2: OT must NOT address physical function for the sake of physical> cac> function. That is what PT does. OT's must address physical function> cac> from an "empowering occupation" perspective. In other words, OT's ONLY> cac> address physical function when improving occupation is the WRITTEN> cac> GOAL of treatment and a specific physical function is a CLEARLY> cac> identified barrier to a SPECIFIC occupation.> > cac> For example, if my UE eval had stated something like: "You know, I> cac> spill food with my left hand and I can't get my right elbow to bend> cac> far enough to get food in my mouth and I so want to eat with my right> cac> hand!" Then, Bam! we have a SPECIFIC occupation that is clearly> cac> limited by physical function.> > cac> However, OT's must not "coerce" or draw parallels between ABSTRACT> cac> occupational goals and physical barriers. Goals must be identified by> cac> the patient, often with the help of the OT. After all, goals should> cac> state what's important to the PATIENT, not what's important to the> cac> therapist, or the referring MD. If it's not important to the patient,> cac> then I don't think OT should be addressing it in therapy. Again, that> cac> should be a hallmark difference between OT and other professions.> > cac> Ron> cac> --> cac> Ron Carson MHS, OT> > cac> ----- Original Message -----> cac> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> cac> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008> cac> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>> cac> 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 > cac> 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>> oc> cac> cupation.> > cac>> Ron> > > > cac> --> cac> Options?> cac> www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com> > cac> Archive?> cac> www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> > cac> --> cac> Options?> cac> www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com> > cac> Archive?> cac> 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] ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:46:26 -0400 From: Ron Carson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? To: "Lehman, David" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 David, functional tasks and occupation are NOT the same thing! Ron -- Ron Carson MHS, OT ----- Original Message ----- From: Lehman, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subj: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? LD> I termed the movements I assess first as functional tasks, you LD> called them occupational tasks. Same dif..... ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:36:37 -0600 (GMT-06:00) From: pat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Exactly, Neal! I always ask patients what their goals are, but the majority of the time, I cannot write them down. The insurance companies don't care if a patient can go fishing or play with their kids, and they would never pay for treatment with those goals. Ron, when reading your posts, I wondered every time if you ever have insurance companies questioning the value of the goals you write, or even refusing to pay? About the only thing they care about with the pain management program is can they go back to work? If they don't at least have the potential to go back to work, or don't want to go back to work, the coverage is denied. Pat -----Original Message----- >From: Neal Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Oct 22, 2008 7:34 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? > >I think your research is incredibly valuable both to us as a profession >and ultimately to the communities we serve. Here's why. >I'll use one of the areas your research is focused--interpersonal >expressions of caring. Often the aged/elderly population have lost so >many meaningful expressions of "life and love" that bathing themselves >is completely irrelevant. But holding that grand baby in their arms and >rocking them to sleep... now, suddenly that same person is alive with >meaningful occupation. The problem is (as always) third party payers >could care less. And I believe they could not care less because we >(OT's) have not demonstrated to them the value of this occupation and >how it impacts this persons ability to stay engaged...maybe even stay >home longer...maybe even have carry effect to other areas of personal >self care. >Keep it up! > > >Neal C. Luther,OTR/L >Rehab Program Coordinator >Advanced Home Care >1-336-878-8824 xt 3205 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Home Care is our Business...Caring is our Specialty > > > >The information contained in this electronic document from Advanced Home Care is privileged and confidential information intended for the sole use of [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the person listed above and discard the original.-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Sue Doyle >Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 11:02 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT? > > >Just another idea from my OT researcher mind. I have been observing >stroke patients for many years. Many patients can function well to >complete their basic self care tasks one handed. The meaning of having >both arms able to function well goes beyond the basic self care tasks we >tend to focus on. The concepts of communication (how many of us talk >with our hands), self esteem and sense of social acceptance (not being >seen as disfigured or disabled), and interpersonal expressions of caring >(eg hugs etc) are ones that I am currently observing as strong >dissatisfiers for clients post stroke who have otherwise mastered basic >self care but are still unhappy with their current performance levels or >the upper extremity function. > >I am currently designing a research study to further investigate these >concepts. But where does that take us as OTs with treatment? > >Just to spin the record at a slightly different speed. > >Sue> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:26:59 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [email protected]> Subject: Re: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and >PT?> > If I evaluated a CVA patient (new or old) and they were unable >to> identify occupation goals, they I would d/c them. Recommending PT> >might or might not be indicated.> > No, I do not think we should use >"common sense" to coerce goals.> Occupational goals are not about your >or me, they are about a> patient's perceived needs and values. Just >because we think something> is important, that is no indication that a >patient will agree.> Especially were patients face catastrophic loss of >occupation. What we> value may be meaningless to our patients. Thus, >using a "common sense"> approach can create more harm than good and >leave patient's feeling> utterly frustrated.> > On the other hand, a >skilled OT may need to enlighten a patient as to> the realities of life >with a CVA. Often this is done during the eval,> either through >questioning or actual performance. After a> comprehensive >occupation-based evaluation, it's is my opinion and> experience that an >OT has a very good understanding of a patient's> concerns and thus their >motives.> > I think a LOT of OT success lies in the timing of our >services. If> patients are not willing or able to focus on occupation >then our> success in improving occupation may be greatly diminished. >However,> when patients are focused on lost occupation, and in the hands >of a> skilled occupation-based OT, improvement in occupation performance >is> almost guaranteed.> > 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> What should an OT >do if the patient identifies that they want to> cac> be able to look to >the left (attention?=body?function)?because of> cac> a right CVA?to >their parietal lobe (body structure)?? They> cac> unfortunately do no >personally state any occupations that they> cac> want to address in >particular.? Should we pass the patient to> cac> physical therapy or >should we "coerce" a few occupational goals?through common sense?> > >cac> Chris Nahrwold MS, OTR> > > cac> -----Original Message-----> cac> >From: Ron Carson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> cac> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ><[email protected]>> cac> Sent: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 7:59 pm> cac> Subject: >Re: [OTlist] Clearly DelineatingOT and PT?> > > > cac> I've been >spinning this "record" for 10+ years and I'm not about to> cac> stop >now! <smile>> > cac> I also want to add that I have absolutely NO >PROBLEM with OT's> cac> addressing physical limitation. Like you said, >we are shooting> cac> ourselves in the proverbial foot if we stop >treating physical> cac> limitations. However, I have two "buts" to add >this statement:> > cac> But 1: OT must NOT address ONLY upper extremity >physical function. As> cac> occupational experts, we MUST learn to >address the musculoskeltal> cac> function of all extremities. I'm not >sure about the spine, but> cac> definately we must address the LE.> > >cac> But 2: OT must NOT address physical function for the sake of >physical> cac> function. That is what PT does. OT's must address >physical function> cac> from an "empowering occupation" perspective. In >other words, OT's ONLY> cac> address physical function when improving >occupation is the WRITTEN> cac> GOAL of treatment and a specific >physical function is a CLEARLY> cac> identified barrier to a SPECIFIC >occupation.> > cac> For example, if my UE eval had stated something >like: "You know, I> cac> spill food with my left hand and I can't get my >right elbow to bend> cac> far enough to get food in my mouth and I so >want to eat with my right> cac> hand!" Then, Bam! we have a SPECIFIC >occupation that is clearly> cac> limited by physical function.> > cac> >However, OT's must not "coerce" or draw parallels between ABSTRACT> cac> >occupational goals and physical barriers. Goals must be identified by> >cac> the patient, often with the help of the OT. After all, goals >should> cac> state what's important to the PATIENT, not what's important >to the> cac> therapist, or the referring MD. If it's not important to >the patient,> cac> then I don't think OT should be addressing it in >therapy. Again, that> cac> should be a hallmark difference between OT >and other professions.> > cac> Ron> cac> --> cac> Ron Carson MHS, OT> > >cac> ----- Original Message -----> cac> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> cac> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008> cac> To: >[email protected] <[email protected]>> cac> 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 > cac> 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>> oc> cac> cupation.> > cac>> Ron> > > > cac> --> cac> >Options?> cac> www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com> > cac> >Archive?> cac> www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> > cac> --> cac> >Options?> cac> www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com> > cac> >Archive?> cac> 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] ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:43:51 -0600 (GMT-06:00) From: pat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OTlist] We've Already Backed Oursleves Into a Corner! To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Ron, when I told my surgeon that I was an OT, he didn't mention upper extremities at all. He said "Oh you're one of those people that does stained glass." !!!!! This is a man who works just down the hall from the OT dept in a military hospital. I told him that I couldn't speak for what other OTs do, but that I personally do not do stained glass, or any crafts, with my patients. (We do collages, but that's for part of the psych component of the pain management program). Pat -----Original Message----- >From: Ron Carson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Oct 22, 2008 7:20 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [OTlist] We've Already Backed Oursleves Into a Corner! > >I am getting ready to do my first home health Medicare recert. While >previewing the form, I notice the following outcome measures: > > * Dressing UB > * Dressing LB > * Bathing > * Toileting > * Transferring > * Ambulation/Locomotion > >Honestly, my mouth just about hit the floor! In my HH facility, there >are now about 5 full-time/prn therapists. This breaks down to 4 >PTs/PTAs and 1 OT. Why in the world are there so many PT's and only 1 >OT????. Why isn't OT the PREMIER home health discipline? > >My answers are really just a bunch of question: > > Isn't it because OT has already painted itself into this silly > corner of focused treatment on the UE? > > Isn't it because OT lacks respect and understanding? > > Isn't it because in rehab, OT's stand or sit with their > patients doing silly games with bean bags, balloons, pegs, > cones, shoulder arcs, etc? > > Isn't it because our patients don't demand OT services? > > Isn't it because doctor's don't understand or respect our > services? > > Isn't it because we've delegated functional mobility to the > the PT's? > >There really is no one to blame but ourselves for this situation!!! > >You know, I'm going to give an inservice to the home health staff, but >I'm NOT going to say this is what OT does or doesn't do. Instead, I'm >going to say that this what *I*, as an OT, do. Why? Because I can't >say this what my profession does when in reality it isn't. In fact, >that's a HUGE problem for us! Our professional literature and ad >campaigns say something and yet many of us do something totally >different. Why? I don't know but I do know it's a HUGE white elephant >that needs to be shot! > >Ron >-- >Ron Carson MHS, OT > > >-- >Options? >www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com > >Archive? >www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] ------------------------------ -- Unsubscribe? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Change options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Help? [EMAIL PROTECTED] End of OTlist Digest, Vol 43, Issue 27 ************************************** -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
