Sue, and there in lies the beauty of occupation-based treatment. The approach encompasses almost ALL areas that impair occupation. BUT, and this is big, remediating those areas is NOT the goal. And yes, yes, yes, occupation does address impairments. For example, I've had many patients who could not swing a leg into the bathtub, or could not sit/rise from the toilet because of LE weakness. So, I direct patients to do LE strengthening exercises BUT I don't sit their and count their reps. That is something they can do on their own. When I return for the next treatment, the patient again attempts their desired occupation. If positive changes occur, then they are doing something right and so am I. If no changes then I will address the exercise situation. But again, ROM, strength, balance, cognition, etc ARE NOT THE PROBLEMS AND THUS ARE NOT THE GOALS!
I do think that OT can address impairments soley for the sake of treating those impairments. But, this drives the therapist away from occupation. And in these cases, I think it's best to claim what the therapist does as hand therapy, low vision therapy, lymphedema treatment, cognitive rehab, etc. Because, in my mind these things are not truly OT. I think I've mentioned that I'm trained in lymphedema management. Just yesterday, I was an an SNF getting ready to do an eval. The nurse asked me if I was the massage therapist (which is a first for me). I quickly said "no, I'm an occupational therapist doing lymphedema treatment". In this way, the nurse knew that I was licensed as an OT but that I was doing lymphedema treatment. Ron -- Ron Carson MHS, OT ----- Original Message ----- From: Sue Doyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 To: otlist@otnow.com <otlist@otnow.com> Subj: [OTlist] UE Evauation Yesterday... SD> Ron, SD> PTs would love what you just said. Not all impairments are within SD> the PT education and practice scope. Though I think they would SD> love to think so. The areas of visual perception, cognition, are SD> two component areas that I can think of where their skill level SD> and training are limited. (Though so are some OTs.) SD> SD> PTs are strongly arguing to increase their scope of practice SD> without the base. But how does that argument flow for OTs? What SD> truly is our base? If Occupation how do we address the impairments SD> that impact? And really given what we know about motor control and SD> motor relearning and cognition and generalization can we treat SD> impairments successfully outside of the context? SD> SD> Just some early morning ramblings? -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/otlist@otnow.com
