I feel the OT profession and its association failed to promote what the true meaning of Occupational Science is and they (as well as PT) let the modern medical money making machine split the body in half. In addition, now OT is left fighting for its life in trying to get reimbursement for occupational innervation versus upper body impairment and function treatment. OT must join the evidence based wagon and show the insurance companies that true occupational therapy/science improves outcomes in daily life skills (not just focus on the general ADLs that we all work on (i.e. bed mobility, transfers, bathing, walking, etc). OT has so much to offer outside the basic ADLs and I feel for people that cannot get true OT for their lives would be so much more fulling
The PT is not limited to impairment improvment and never really has been. PTs that were and some that still are caught in the mindset that treating impairments is what we do are poor clinical thinkers in that we must take impairments to the functional level or it makes no sense. What I have a big problem with is the jump PTs make from thinking that improving an impairment is actually improving a function. For example, there is no scientifc evidence that a 3/5 or 4/5 manual muscle test leads to improved sit to stand. I have to make my students think about the theory behind why they choose to improve an impairment and that theory must be related to improving function. I am going out on a limb here, but, I feel one day professions such as PT, OT, activity therapists, etc. will all be one (i.e a rehabilitation specialist) and this overlap/turf war will be gone..... Does this make any sense? David A. Lehman, PhD, PT Associate Professor Tennessee State University Department of Physical Therapy 3500 John A. Merritt Blvd. Nashville, TN 37209 615-963-5946 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my website: http://www.tnstate.edu/interior.asp?mid=2410&ptid=1 This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information and is intended solely for use by the individual to whom it is addressed. If you receive this correspondence in error, please notify the sender and delete the email from your system. Do not disclose its contents with others. ________________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mary Alice Cafiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:14 PM To: OTlist@OTnow.com Subject: Re: [OTlist] Blurring the lines I was told almost ten years ago now that PT as a profession was beginning to see the writing on the wall for the future emphasis of functional outcomes. PT programs became more tailored to teach functional skills and functional goals to better match funding source's expectations. I don't know that it is bad that we are all focused on function. I certainly don't think it is bad that the old division of upper body vs lower body is gone. I DO worry though that PT will continue to try to take more and more things that truly should be OT realm because of our philosophical and frame of reference differences. I hate territory wars. More than that, however, I hate to see someone doing something with a patient without understanding why they are doing it. Am I making any sense? Mary Alice Mary Alice Cafiero, MSOTR, ATP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 972-757-3733 Fax 888-708-8683 This message, including any attachments, may include confidential, privileged and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the recipient of this message, please notify the sender and permanently delete the message from your system. On Aug 20, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Ron Carson wrote: > Just received a "flyer" offering two education workshops: > > 1. Using kinesotaping and splinting to improve UE function in children > w/ neuromuscular conditions > > 2. Functional anatomy of the upper limb and prehensile system > > #1 is offered by an OT > > #2 is offered by a PT > > It sure seems the the lines between PT and OT are becoming more and > more obscured. At least, in the realm of physical dysfunction. > > Ron > > -- > Ron Carson MHS, OT > www.OTnow.com > > > -- > Options? > www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com > > Archive? > www.mail-archive.com/otlist@otnow.com -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/otlist@otnow.com -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/otlist@otnow.com
