Hello:
Thanks Chuck.
Are PAMS still an issue?? I was under the impression that
all OT practice acts already included PAMS.
Ron
<<<<< Original Message Follows >>>>>
On Monday, October 15, 2001, Charles Willmarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-
CW> Ron,
CW> I would just add that state OT associations and AOTA are closely monitoring PT
chapter efforts to inappropriately broaden the PT scope of practice.
CW> PT concerns with OT bills have primarily focused on the issue of PAMs. Language
has been crafted to require that OTs get additional training to use modalities to
address PT concerns.
CW> Chuck
CW> <<< [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/15 7:08p >>>
CW> Hello Shelia:
CW> First, I love your comments regarding how you explain the differences
CW> between OT and PT! I think I will adopt that approach and see what type of
CW> response I get.
CW> Secondly, I think the PT profession (not necessarily individual
CW> practitioners) believes that ADL's is well within their scope of practice.
CW> I'm sure you know this but just in case.... Recently, APTA's practice
CW> guidelines changed to include ADL's and functional retraining in the home to
CW> be within their professional domain of concern. Practice guidelines often
CW> form the basis for State's practice acts so there has and still is, State's
CW> efforts to adopt the guidelines into legal definitions of what PT can and
CW> can not do.
CW> As State's practice acts change, so does the ability of that State's PT's to
CW> practice in domains which have traditionally been OT's domain. This is why
CW> I'm soooo concerned!
CW> If you still have the text of the article, reread the last paragraph. As I
CW> interpret it, the APTA is saying that they are monitoring OT practice act
CW> changes to ensure they are supported by educational objectives of the
CW> profession. Why? Because, it has been our stance that PT's can't practice
CW> ADL retraining because they aren't educated on it. SO, they are going to
CW> play tit-for-tat and repay us the "favor" and ensure our education fully
CW> supports our practice.
CW> This is not necessarily a bad thing but does highlight the competitive
CW> nature of the professions.
CW> Ron
CW> <<<<< Original Message Follows >>>>>
CW> On Friday, October 12, 2001, sheila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CW> -
s>> Just thinking out loud here...
s>> I know what OT is. I am an OT and I love it and I
s>> believe in it. However, I acknowledge the fact that
s>> PT has something to offer people with disabilities,
s>> too. What I don't know is exactly what it is that PT
s>> has to offer.
s>> I hate to bring up the issue of comparing OT to PT in
s>> an attempt to explain the role of one or both
s>> professions, but it seems to me that this is what
s>> needs to be done. Often people ask me how OT and PT
s>> are different and my response is always to explain to
s>> them what OT is, and then refer them to a PT to
s>> explain what PT is, because I do not feel that I can
s>> fully explain PT's role as well as a PT could. After
s>> all, I went to OT school not PT school!
s>> I used to be comfortable handling it this way, but now
s>> I feel that I need to be aware a what PT really thinks
s>> their role is, because based on the article that Ron
s>> sent below, it sounds as if they think they are
s>> responsible for ADL/self care retraining.
s>> Do they mean this in regard to mobility during ADLs
s>> only or in regard to other components and performance
s>> areas and contexts typically addressed by OT during
s>> ADLs (ie., UE ROM and strength, cognition, fine motor
s>> skills, sensation, environmental adaptations, adaptive
s>> equipment training, etc.) I surely do not think that
s>> PTs believe that the examples above are in their scope
s>> of practice, do they? Please, someone enlighten me.
s>> Thank you.
s>> Sheila
s>> --- Ron Carson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hello All:
>>>
>>> It's ironic how things happen because this PM (the
>>> same day I posted the
>>> message about the Stroke Magazine article), I was
>>> given the following from
>>> PT Magazine's October 2001 edition, page 29.
>>>
>>> WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE IN ITS
>>> ENTIRETY.................
>>>
>>>
s>> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>
>>> State OT associations, backed by their national
>>> association, continued their
>>> campaign to limit a traditional area of physical
>>> therapy practice - ADL's
>>> and self-care. OT organizations argue that PT's
>>> have recently entered these
>>> areas in an attempt to broaden PT's scope of
>>> practice. PT education and
>>> practice, however, have long supported these areas
>>> of PT. This is a battle
>>> that is taking place in both the legislative and
>>> regulatory arenas. It is
>>> being used to oppose PT legislative initiatives and
>>> modifications to
>>> regulations governing PT practice.
>>>
>>> Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland,
>>> Mississippi and New
>>> Hampshire all addressed a variety of OT-related
>>> legislation in 2001,
>>> including its inclusion in workers' compensation
>>> programs, creation of
>>> independent OT boards, and implementation of
>>> sweeping changes in OT practice
>>> acts.
>>>
>>> Forecast: APTA is monitoring this push to introduce
>>> OT practice act
>>> legislation in state legislatures around the
>>> country. The Association will
>>> continue to work with state chapters to ensure that,
>>> if this type of
>>> legislation passes, that will establish a scope of
>>> practice that accurately
>>> reflects the education and clinical training of the
>>> OT.
>>>
>>>
s>> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>
>>> If you ever doubt that there is REAL competition
>>> between OT and PT then this
>>> should help change your mind. I guess the real
>>> question is what, as both
>>> individuals and an organization, can/should we do to
>>> address the issues
>>> raised by this article.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> ********************
>>>
>>> Unsubscribe by sending a message to
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's body, put the
>>> following text:
>>>
>>> unsubscribe OTlist
>>>
>>> ------
>>>
>>> OTnow messages are archived at:
>>>
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] (and)
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
>>>
>>> ********rC***********
>>>
s>> __________________________________________________
s>> Do You Yahoo!?
s>> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
s>> http://personals.yahoo.com
s>> ********************
s>> Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's body,
put the following text:
s>> unsubscribe OTlist
s>> ------
s>> OTnow messages are archived at:
s>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] (and)
s>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
s>> ********rC***********
CW> ********************
CW> Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's body,
put the following text:
CW> unsubscribe OTlist
CW> ------
CW> OTnow messages are archived at:
CW> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] (and)
CW> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
CW> ********rC***********
CW> ********************
CW> Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's body,
put the following text:
CW> unsubscribe OTlist
CW> ------
CW> OTnow messages are archived at:
CW> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] (and)
CW> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
CW> ********rC***********
********************
Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's body, put
the following text:
unsubscribe OTlist
------
OTnow messages are archived at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] (and)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
********rC***********
