I would like to add, that it doesn't have to be vocational - suppose the patient is a high-powered executive, but she liked to paint and decorate her house - then climbing a ladder may still be an occupation, but not a vocation. What if she has had bilateral below-knee-amputations and declines a prosthesis, then climbing a ladder may not be possible, so adaptations and assistive technology may be apporpriate - the goal is not to climb a ladder, but to paint the wall, or stencil a border.



I agree with Ron that function and occupation are not the same thing, although they do overlap. I think of smoking a cigarette, watching TV, reading a magazine, these may be occupational to some people, but hardly functional. The point about occupation, which is meaningful activity, is that it is only the person them self that can determine if something is meaningful to them, while we can all detect if something is functional.



I am working a lot with clients who are visually and/or hearing impaired. Even something as simple as making a phone call is problematic in these cases. If someone is hearing-impaired, and subsequently cannot speak well enough to be understood, then making a reservation at a hotel or restaurant is difficult: applying for a job by phone can be almost impossible. As an OT (almost) I look at adaptations and accommodations to help persons overcome such disability. I look at the whole person, and what it is they want to do, then come up with solutions. If in the above example I just looked at getting the person to climb a ladder I would miss the whole problem, which is the need to stencil a border. Whereas both a PT and an OT (it seems to me) may helps people overcome injury or disorders, only an OT may also work in those areas where therapeutic progress against the disease is not possible, but adaptations and assistive technology are the way to therapeutic intervention.

Sue Hossack MOTS


Ron Carson wrote:


Hello Jody:

I  like your observations. I want to add that I might make climbing a ladder
an  OT  goal  if  the  client  needed  to  climb  a  ladder  to engage in an
occupation. In the following example, keep in mind that a vocation is a type
of  occupation. According to the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance,
a  vocation  is  an  example  of an occupation falling into the productivity
category.

Example  -  If  a  client  needed  to climb a ladder in order to perform his
vocation of painting, then painting would be the long-term goal and climbing
a ladder would be the short-term goal.

And  like  you stated, if painting was the clients long-term goal and he was
unable  to achieve the short-term goal of climbing the ladder, we would look
at alternative ways to complete the painting, such as extended handles.

The  above  example is for years what I tried to get students to understand.
It's  a 'framing the problem' approach to being an OT. I am firmly convinced
that  when  an  OT  looks  a  client,  they  should  see  a different set of
"problems" than any other profession.

Ron



=================================================
Monday, November 24, 2003, 8:22:04 PM, you wrote:

Sac> But David, those weren't Ron's words, they were the words of Judy Yeh <
Sac> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Ron is a bit too much of a purist for me but I will
Sac> defend him this time.   I am sure Ron would agree that climbing a ladder would be 
a
Sac> PT goal.  The only time I think Ron would make it an OT goal was if I derive
Sac> my identity from my occupation as an apple picker and now I cannot climb a
Sac> ladder so I have an occupational disorder.  And even then he might explore other
Sac> ways I could fulfill my occupational identity other than getting on a ladder,
Sac> such as an adaptive device to grab the apples while I am on the ground.
Sac>  -- Jody Van Ness OT


Sac> In a message dated 11/24/03 9:25:09 AM Central Standard Time, Sac> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





Ron...I cannot believe you made this interpretation in your last post:

" In any case, it seems to me that occupational therapy is called just
that because of its focus on activity, compared to, say, physical
therapy. A physical therapist would help a victim of a car accident
regain muscle tone in his or her legs and the ability to walk, but an
occupational therapist would teach the person how to climb a ladder, how
to go up and down stairs, etc."   . . .

I would think that a higher level thinking PT would be able to take their
client to "that next step". . . .


Peace brother



David A. Lehman, PhD, PT




Sac> _______________________________________________ Sac> To unsubscribe, visit: Sac> http://otnow.com/mailman/listinfo/otlist_otnow.com

Sac> The OTnow Mail Archive: Sac> www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sac> ===============================================




_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, visit: http://otnow.com/mailman/listinfo/otlist_otnow.com

The OTnow Mail Archive: www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================




_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, visit: http://otnow.com/mailman/listinfo/otlist_otnow.com

The OTnow Mail Archive: www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================

Reply via email to