Oops, 
I left out the word "not" in a critical place.  What I meant was, I'd ask how those 
contractures are preventing necessary occupational performance. Rachelle

> ----------
> From:         Dorne, Rachelle D.
> Reply To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent:         Wednesday, October 2, 2002 9:22 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:      RE: Re[2]: Dichotomy of teaching OT
> 
> Ron,
> Another option with that type of referral would be to ask the referring party what 
>kinds of activities or tasks is that patient doing that she wants to do, is expected 
>to do, or needs to do because of such UE tightness.  Perhaps that would promote a 
>team approach between OT and PT.  PT could focus on the musculoskeletal problem and 
>OT could focus on...occupational performance.  That type of response might facilitate 
>discussion. Just an idea.
> Rachelle
> 
> > ----------
> > From:       Ron Carson
> > Reply To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent:       Wednesday, October 2, 2002 9:14 AM
> > To:         Dana Levinson
> > Subject:    Re[2]: Dichotomy of teaching OT
> > 
> > Hello Dana:
> > 
> > I  don't  necessarily disagree with all you say but I do NOT think that as a
> > professional  organization,  we market ourselves as being UE experts. AOTA's
> > web site, state practice acts, etc talk about meaningful activity, function,
> > ADL's,   etc,   they  don't  talk  about  neurological  and  musculoskeletal
> > impairments  as  the primary focus of our concern. And yet, on the practice
> > front, we practice as if we are UE experts in physical medicine.
> > 
> > I  am not a social occupational therapist, I am an occupational therapist. I
> > try  to  do  what  it  is  the professional organization says we do. I don't
> > exclude  biophysical  from  my practice area, but it's not the reason for my
> > treatment. I think we can spend many e-mail discussing what it is we do, but
> > let  me  ask you a question; "When you receive a client referral, how do you
> > know if that client is appropriate for OT treatment?"
> > 
> > With  regard  to  focusing on both ends of the continuum, I don't think
> > that's  a  viable  option.  I  believe  that  as  a profession, we must
> > identify which end from which we want to operate. As far as I can tell,
> > we  will  NEVER  be  seen  as orthopedic experts because that market is
> > already  full.  However, the market for expertise in occupation is wide
> > open and all we need do is step through the door.
> > 
> > Yesterday,  I  received  a  hospice referral for a woman with bilateral
> > upper  extremity  tightness.  The  therapy  director  told  me that she
> > thought  of  me  first but that either an OT or PT could go. I told the
> > director  that  if  the  primary complaint is upper extremity tightness
> > then  she should send a PT. Now, some OT's think I'm crazy, but I think
> > it's  the right choice. I don't want to receive referrals because of UE
> > problems, I want referrals because of occupational problems.
> > 
> > Ron
> > 
> > ============================================
> > 
> > On 10/1/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > 
> > 
> > DL> Ron,
> > 
> > DL>  You're what I call a "Social Occupational Therapist," the OT version of
> > DL> a   Social   Psychologist.   The  other  type  of  psychologist  is  the
> > DL> BioPsychologist.  In  my  opinion,  there  is  a tremendous lack of "Bio
> > DL> Occupational  Therapists."  In  essense,  the difference is studying the
> > DL> field  at  a  Macro  vs. Micro Level. This has been a deep debate in the
> > DL> Philosophy  of  Science. Which is better? Which is necessary? The answer
> > DL> is both.
> > 
> > DL>  Imagine what psychology would be if purists took over. The entire field
> > DL> would be doing psychoanalysis. What made Psychology such a booming field
> > DL> is that they expanded their scope of research and practice... So much so
> > DL> that  there is an entire medical specialty (Psychiatry, obviously) based> 
> > DL> on Biopsychology.
> > 
> > DL>  Here's  what  it  comes  down  to...  You  want  to focus on Occupation
> > DL> (Macrolevel)...  But  occupation  is  accomplished  through  micro-level
> > DL> processes  (e.g.,  UE strength). IMHO, if OT wants to grow, it will need
> > DL> to be thoroughly knowledgeable at both micro and macro levels. What will
> > DL> distinguish  us  from  PT  is that we can (and will hopefully) focus our
> > DL> efforts at both levels while PT focuses on only the micro level.> 
> > 
> > DL> Just my opinion.
> > 
> > DL> Dana
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > DL> On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:03:52 -0400, Ron Carson wrote:
> > >>Today,  in  my  human occupation class, I spent a solid hour
> > >>discussing
> > >>occupational  performance as it relates to role competence. The
> > >>theory,
> > >>as   written   in  Christiansen  and  Baum's,  "Enabling  Function
> > >>and
> > >>Well-being",  is  that  humans  engage  in  occupation  in  order to
> > >>be
> > >>competent  at  their  roles.  And that role competence is a
> > >>fundamental
> > >>drive  of  healthy humans. The point of the lecture is to help
> > >>students
> > >>begin  to  gather  some  understanding of the necessity, complexity
> > >>and
> > >>depth of enabling occupation in their future clients.
> > >>
> > >>At  the  completion  of  class,  a  student  held  up a poster that
> > >>was
> > >>requesting  volunteers  or  announcing a presentation or something.
> > >>The
> > >>research and poster were about UE Muscle Strength. I asked the
> > >>students
> > >>if  they  were  confused by this dichotomy that we had just had a
> > >>class
> > >>about  human  occupation  and  why  OT  should  not  be  practiced
> > >>like
> > >>upper-extremity PT and then to be doing research on UE function.
> > >>
> > >>One  student  responded  that  it  was  confusing and the other
> > >>student
> > >>seemed  confused.  And  frankly, I'm confused!! It seems like some
> > >>OT's
> > >>see  UE function as our trademark practice pattern while other OT's
> > >>see
> > >>occupation  as  our  trademark.  I  am  confused by this situation,
> > >>can
> > >>anyone help??????
> > >>
> > >>Thanks,
> > >>
> > >>Ron
> > >>
> > >>*********��***********
> > >>
> > >>Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>
> > >>In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist
> > >>
> > >>** List messages are archived at:
> > >>
> > >>http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
> > >>
> > >>*********��***********
> > >>
> > >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > DL> Dana Levinson
> > DL> Rehab Science, Inc.
> > DL> http://www.rehabscience.com/
> > DL> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > DL> *********��***********
> > 
> > DL> Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > DL> In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist
> > 
> > DL> ** List messages are archived at:
> > 
> > DL> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
> > 
> > DL> *********��***********
> > 
> > *********��***********
> > 
> > Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist
> > 
> > ** List messages are archived at:
> > 
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
> > 
> > *********��***********
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> *********��***********
> 
> Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist
> 
> ** List messages are archived at:
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
> 
> *********��***********
> 
> 
> 

*********��***********

Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist

** List messages are archived at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

*********��***********

Reply via email to