I just wanted to go back to the original to address a flawed foundational assumption: that there is an orthopaedic condition that would not effect occupation.
Can you give clear examples? If yes, then is this example an exception or a rule? Is this a debate about the fringe/grey area between professions or mere semantics? I would suggest that the vast majority of splinting that is required is related to occupation, even if it is to maintain ROM to prevent skin breakdown in a non-used limb since skin breakdown and contracure do interfere with occupation. Greg ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Levinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:59 AM Subject: Ron - Occupational Splinting? > Ron et al., > > OTs often get called to create splints for orthopedic patients and not for any specific occupational deficit. Would you also refer these patients to PT? Would you do only occupational splinting? > > Just curious, > > ------------------------ > Dana Levinson, PhD > Project Manager > Rehab Science, Inc. > http://www.rehabscience.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] *********��***********
