Hi Ron:
You are right all states provide some form of regulation of OT in general, just not licensure (except that there 4 states that do not regulate OTAs- Virginia, New York, Hawaii, and Colorado). In my earlier post I slipped, I meant licensure to ensure and define our scope of practice. Sorry for the confusion. Ron, I think you know by now that I do believe in OT's strength and scope to be the most effective and efficient contributor to facilitate a person's independence/ ability to function in accordance to his developmental stage and per societal norms in daily living/ occupational tasks (even if they are not daily :-) (life functions- I do like this word) that he must, should and wishes to indulge in. I do not doubt that we bring in the 'specialization' to identify and address occupational limitations, maladaptations and deprivations. Just as PTs bring in the specialization to address 'physical functions' by 'physical means', and naturopathists bring in the 'specialization' to address/ fight pathology and promote health by 'natural' methods, or an MD brings in the specialization with 'allopathic' methods. We do have a role.....but again, as the work done by MD may be done by a DO, or that of an ND (Naturopathic Doctor) by a overzealous DC, most of what a DC does by a PT... our 'domain' is turfed/ shared by others - PT, nurses, DCs, SLPs, rec. therapists, etc.. In the general sense of the word, yes 'occupation' is our domain but to me strictly 'legally' it is not and, I really don't see how it can be. That is, legally we cannot claim it to ourselves and prevent it from being practiced by others. The question is not who is the best qualified, but do others perform it, too. If walking is an occupational task, it is addressed elsewhere, if sports is an occupation (vocational or leisure) for an athelete, sports rehab is addressed by someone else (including the psychosocial aspects of it), if self-care is an important aspect of occupational performance, nurses have been endorsed by medicare to do all the teaching and training they want in institutions or homehealth. Luckily, they have chosen not to or, do not feel comfortable doing......I was worried with the term ' rehabilitation nursing', when it first came out as a skillable service under Part A SNF-PPS. Since the scope of the word "occupation" is so wide, we will see it being practiced by others, may be under a different term. In my opinion, it is more worthwhile to unleash the breadth and scope of the profession and practice it 'holistically', fully understanding that no one person can handle all the issues by themselves. You will have a mental health OT believing (or at least focusing in this area) that OT is all in the head and limbic sytem, a physical-dysfn./ hand OT believing in the word that biomechanics is what moves the world that follows the laws of physics, a hi-tech OT transforming the environment into a spaceship to ensure that life still floats, a hospice OT believing that OT lies in ensuring that even death is a 'productive goal' in life...........all still bonded by a common thread ensuring that life-functions (the occupations of living) are best facilitated and preserved. The emphasis is on identifying, addressing/ treating those 'occupations' and it's effect on life. In different settings the dominance of different factors that affect occupational performance will differ- mental (psychopathological/ sociopathological, neuropsychiatric) issues or, physical issues ( orthopedic, neurological/ sensori-motor/ neurodevelopmental, cardiovascular), etc., with the need for the emphasis to shift from one approach to another. So do the skills. In the medical model, we can just blatantly say it is based upon the pathology/ disabilty. Or, as OTs have the opportunity to put in perspective of the client's unique need and place in the social arena. Again, not 'legally' but I truelly believe our uniqueness lies as the true 'link' between medical rehabilitation and social rehabilitation ( I look at SWs as the gateway to social rehab)....how often we act as the link or the lock is the question..... Ron thanks for a good debate. Would love to hear others' viewpoints. Thanks to the ones that did respond to this thread. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Carson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Joe Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 11:38 AM Subject: Re[10]: [OTlist] PT does it all!! > Hello Joe: > > Will you further explain your below statement? > > I may be wrong, but I believe that all states provide some form of OT > regulation. However, not all states provide licensure. > > What is OT's unique contribution to healthcare? What is it that we do > that no other profession can do better or equally? > > Ron > > > =============================================================== > On 9/6/2003,[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > JW> While I hope that "occupation" is our domain, legally we cannot claim it as > JW> ours only. With a couple of states yet to regulate OT in the US, anybody can > JW> practice it there. While the principle of occupation has certainly be > JW> claimed by our profession- and, "occupation" is what we "do-mainly", it is > JW> not our domain in the strictest legal sense, since it is practiced overtly > JW> or covertly by other professions. (The very topic of our thread). > > > > > *****************************��********************************** > > To remove yourself from the OTnow mail list, send a message to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In the message, indicate what address you want removed from OTnow > > - > > List messages are archived at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > *****************************��*********************************** > *****************************��********************************** To remove yourself from the OTnow mail list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message, indicate what address you want removed from OTnow - List messages are archived at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] *****************************��***********************************
