Ed, I feel that "function" is a non-descript word that really tells NOTHING of what OT does. Also, every profession addresses function, in fact almost all health care is about function. Everything from a cardiologist to a PT address function. So where does OT stand in the continuum of "function". In it's own right, OT has NO RECOGNIZED SPECIALITY. Function can not and is not a recognized speciality. On the other hand, occupation is!
In my opinion the problem with OT is NOT ITS NAME. It's the fact that there are way too many lazy and incompetent therapists who do not give a heck about their profession or about their patients. And that leads to therapists practicing poor and generally inept therapy that has virtually no medical necessity. Changing the name of the profession will do NOTHING to change the general makeup of practitioners. It will just be one more failed change. For example, take what D. Chang said: "I've learned a whole lot more from you than any of my OT professors". While greatly appreciating the comment, that is a TERRIBLY sad statement about OT education. When a "distraught" OT lamenting on the internet has more perceived educational value than someone's professors, that says a LOT. It is my contention that occupation is the perfect name for us. It tells exactly what we do (or at least what we say we do). The problem is that today's mainstream usage of the term occupation is out of touch with our usage. But, this can change. In fact, I think it can be easily changed if: 1. Every OT practitioner will use the term occupation is their everday verbal and written language. I write notes using occupation and I tell people that my speciality is occupation. Of course, I explain occupation. I also say that OT is about "teaching people to take care of themselves and be productive". It really is a simple statement that makes sense to me, patients and providers. But, I don't just say it, I DO IT! And that's an IMPORTANT part of the process which is grossly lacking in our profession. 2. AOTA promotes the word occupation. Forget the backpack awareness, "living life to its fullest, promotions. They MUST PROMOTE THE VALUE AND MEANING OF OCCUPATION! Thanks, Ron PS: Sorry for grammos and typos. I'm writing in a hurray because I must go do some occupation so that I can do some occupational therapy. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Kaine <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subj: [OTlist] Just About To Give UP............ EK> Hi Ron; EK> I think you're *so* right about the value of occupation and the fact that EK> Occupational Therapy has so much to offer. As you can imagine from the ALOFT EK> project something had to kick me and us into action. It was many days like EK> the one you described. I am constantly fighting a battle to have OT brought EK> up in the same sentence of along with PT. PT is the solution for everything. EK> I have a staff of almost three times as many PTs than OTs (not as bad as 15 EK> to 3 but they have an OT as a manager and I've been building... it was 7:1 EK> when I started). But even now, in tight financial times, having most of the EK> administrators, doctors, healthcare workers and PTs themselves not know much EK> about or place much value in OTs is not much fun. EK> Can we change it? EK> As you know, I personally believe that "Functional Therapy" would be a EK> better term to describe our work. In the past when I've said EK> "function" people have rapidly turned to physical function as if to peg me EK> down (I am actually on the other side, wanting the PTs I manage to expand EK> into at least screening cognition and having treatments be driven towards EK> functional things patients will need to do). Truly the definition of EK> 'Function' contains much more of what we as Occupational Therapists espouse. EK> 'Function' is synonymous with words like "role", "purpose", "use", etc. In EK> my thinking the word 'occupation' as we know and live it is not EK> understandable to the general public, our definition of Occupation *is not EK> in the dictionary* so why should we think it is obvious? EK> Check out EK> http://registeredfunctionaltherapist.blogspot.com/2009/05/argument-for-functional-therapy.html EK> for EK> the visual thesaurus version. EK> I know that you are a fan of the word "Occupation" in its own right. I like EK> words, I think this one is a great one and helps us expand our thoughts. But EK> how many times will we be having to try to explain what we do to people who EK> have seen us do it time and again? I think it's up to us, as OTs, to reach EK> out to the public. EK> I'm asking you to look at the possible benefits of an alternative name. Go EK> ahead and bounce "maybe it would make more sense if we were called EK> 'functional therapy'" off of your colleagues just to see if it is more EK> intuitive. In the meantime you and I are still trying to popularize the same EK> philosophy and methods. EK> What would the world lose if it didn't have the OT perspective? I think a EK> lot. EK> I hope you'll check out EK> www.FunctionalTherapist.org<http://www.functionaltherapist.org/>again. EK> We need great and dedicated therapists like you Ron. EK> Yours, EK> Ed Kaine, OTR, RFT EK> President of the American League of Functional Therapists EK> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Ron Carson <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am just about at the end of a very long road of trying to change my >> profession. >> >> No one seems to value occupation as an outcome. I refuse to see >> patient's with the purpose of improving UE function so my HH agency just >> calls other OT's who will. PT's don't appreciate occupation but it >> encroaches on their treatment. My agency is clueless about occupation >> and has no reason to learn about it. >> >> I so value what I do and I believe that most of my patient's do as well. >> Most of them can not articulate occupation or occupational therapy but >> they do know that I'm there to teach them two things: >> >> 1. How to take care of themselves >> >> 2. How to be productive >> >> I almost cried when I left my agency's staff meeting today. EVERTHING is >> about PT, PT, PT, and how wonderful they are. There must be like 15 PT's >> while there is only 3 OT's. It's really a sad state of affairs. I am >> tired of going from "hero to zero". Hero with patients and zero with my >> agency and other therapists. >> >> The other day a nurse with 24 years experience told a patient that OT >> was about small muscles and PT was about gait and large muscle groups. I >> promptly called the nurse and explained that OT is about occupation - >> i.e. take care of yourself and being productive. She said, that she >> didn't know and that even after all these years she really has no idea >> what OT does. She suggested that I call my agency and do an inservice. >> Now can you even imagine that a home health agency needs an inservice on >> the role of OT!! Sad state of affairs. >> >> Am I the ONLY OT who experiences and feel these emotions??????????????? >> Gosh, I hope not. But then on the other hand, maybe it's just me. Maybe >> I just refuse to accept the way things are. Maybe I'm just a >> self-centered egotist who is totally clueless about OT. I truly, truly >> don't understand WHY "things" are the way they are. And more >> importantly, what can be done, if anything, to change the direction of >> UE physical dysfunction OT. >> >> >> -- >> Options? >> www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com >> >> Archive? >> www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] >> EK> -- EK> Options? EK> www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com EK> Archive? EK> www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
