Hello Irene: Funny you should mention budget cuts because I just lost my job. And guess, what, it boiled down to budget cuts. While there are many possible explanations as to why I lost my job, one plausible one is that I primarily teach courses relating to occupation and psychosocial OT. In the grand scheme of things, these courses were seen as more easily taught by others because they required less expertise than other courses, such as orthopedics. In my obviously biased opinion, this type of thinking devalues the complexities of occupation and places more emphasis on non-occupation related courses.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's a dog-eat-dog world. OT has few professional organizations that we can call true allies. The other comment I have is that just because someone has UE tightness, there is no reason to suspect that they have occupational performance deficits. Thanks, Ron ================================================ On 10/2/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: PI> Ron, PI> Just remember that facilities are in business to make money. Don't be picky. PI> PT is not picky. If it comes down to budget cuts and the value of rehab PI> services, because you turn down requests for service, OT will be the first PI> to go. Then, PT will the only rehab profession at this facility doing their PI> work and OT also. Yes, the referral might have been for UE tightnes, which PI> effects occupation. Accepting this referral would have been a perfect PI> opportunity to demonstrate the value of OT and the use of occupation in PI> physical rehab. PI> Irene PI> -----Original Message----- PI> From: Ron Carson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] PI> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:15 AM PI> To: Dana Levinson PI> Subject: Re[2]: Dichotomy of teaching OT PI> Hello Dana: PI> I don't necessarily disagree with all you say but I do NOT think that as a PI> professional organization, we market ourselves as being UE experts. AOTA's PI> web site, state practice acts, etc talk about meaningful activity, function, PI> ADL's, etc, they don't talk about neurological and musculoskeletal PI> impairments as the primary focus of our concern. And yet, on the practice PI> front, we practice as if we are UE experts in physical medicine. PI> I am not a social occupational therapist, I am an occupational therapist. I PI> try to do what it is the professional organization says we do. I don't PI> exclude biophysical from my practice area, but it's not the reason for my PI> treatment. I think we can spend many e-mail discussing what it is we do, but PI> let me ask you a question; "When you receive a client referral, how do you PI> know if that client is appropriate for OT treatment?" PI> With regard to focusing on both ends of the continuum, I don't think PI> that's a viable option. I believe that as a profession, we must PI> identify which end from which we want to operate. As far as I can tell, PI> we will NEVER be seen as orthopedic experts because that market is PI> already full. However, the market for expertise in occupation is wide PI> open and all we need do is step through the door. PI> Yesterday, I received a hospice referral for a woman with bilateral PI> upper extremity tightness. The therapy director told me that she PI> thought of me first but that either an OT or PT could go. I told the PI> director that if the primary complaint is upper extremity tightness PI> then she should send a PT. Now, some OT's think I'm crazy, but I think PI> it's the right choice. I don't want to receive referrals because of UE PI> problems, I want referrals because of occupational problems. PI> Ron PI> ============================================ PI> 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>> *********��*********** PI> *********��*********** PI> Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] PI> In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist PI> ** List messages are archived at: PI> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] PI> *********��*********** *********��*********** 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] *********��***********
