Hello Evan:
I want to address a specific comment in your previous message.
----------
On 2/24/2001, Evan Kay Said:
[cut]
EK> To simply say that I am an occupational performance practicioner
EK> ignors the components behind occupational performance ...
>From both the perspective of theory and practice, I don't think anything can
be further from the truth. The above argument, however, is a common
misconception about occupation-based treatment. Here's my opinion and
experience.
The majority of the occupation-based frames of reference (MOHO, CMOP, OA,
etc), do NOT exclude performance components. They simply place emphasis on
performance areas versus the components. As I understand it,
occupation-based models provide an occupational reasoning for why an OT might
want to address ROM, strength, balance, memory, problem-solving, etc.
When I practiced in the absence of occupation-based frames of reference I
had little (if any) understanding as to why my treatment was different than
PT. Using occupation-based frames clarified both my philosophy and my
treatment. I continued to perform many of the same treatments but the
occupational basis of my treatment clearly delineated my role to the
treatment team, the client and myself.
Also, to me, occupation-based treatment is the key distinction between OT
and PT and frankly gives us the high hand, especially if we will recognize
that improving occupational performance improves occupation, improves
components, enhances environment, improves self-esteem, improves
self-efficacy, enhances productivity, improves role competence, etc. In
fact, I see it as an almost fail-proof method to facilitate clients to
achieve the greatest amount of occupational performance they desire. By
making occupation the goal (versus the component) clients are guaranteed
greater success at "doing" and living life.
Ron
---------
*Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's body, put
the following text:
unsubscribe list
OTnow messages are archived at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------
