ABC Therapeutics Occupational Therapy Weblog

A little over a year ago I presented an argument that the Emmanuel Movement provided important core values for the occupational therapy profession .  This argument was constructed in context of a debate on whether or not Social Justice was a historical value of the profession. I was curious as to why we neglected to include the Emmanuel Movement when we discussed our values and beliefs.  In the beginnings of the 20th century the Emmanuel Movement was based on the notion that a new method was required to address the social problems of disability and illness.  That new method was a philosophy regarding responsibility and self reliance - and surrounded by Christian values of charity. Furthermore, that method was most certainly not based on a governmental model of redistribution or in a new age construct of oppression and liberation.  That fact is what made some of the recent social justice debates so curious. Shannon (1977) warned that "a discipline that forgets its founders

I teach ethical decision making to occupational therapy students.  One of the most common concerns that I hear from students each year is the pressure that they experience regarding productivity and 'meeting minutes requirements' in skilled nursing facilities.  Nursing homes receive higher rates of reimbursement based on intensity of rehab services that are provided, so there is an incentive for facilities to provide as much 'high intensity' therapy as possible. Typically, the students express ethical distress because they often believe that the recipients of these services are receiving marginal or no benefit from their participation. As a population, OT students feel disempowered about expressing concerns in this area during their fieldwork experiences because a) they perceive that they are 'just students' and don't want to make waves b) they feel confused because their clinical preceptors are all engaging in the behavior c) they have compet

The Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education released an unexpected set of decisions last week. In sum, the two decisions promote the concept of dual entry levels for OTA education and dual entry levels for OT education.  The OTA dual entry (associates and baccalaureate) is an entirely new concept while the OT dual entry (masters and doctoral) follows a year-long debate on whether or not the profession should adopt the doctoral level as a single point of entry. The reason why each of these decisions was surprising is because they contradicted the publicized opinions of the American Occupational Therapy Association, the member group for the profession. As such the 'problem' with the decisions doesn't rest with ACOTE alone, but rather represents a community of professionals that are at odds with themselves and unsure of how to move toward the future. +++ Regarding OTA education, an Ad Hoc Committee of AOTA looked at the complex issues surrounding O

This post represents continuing analysis of the process to change the entry level educational requirements for practicing occupational therapy from the masters level to the doctoral level.  The analysis is offered as a public critique of the occupational therapy profession's methodology for enacting such a change. The 45 day comment period on a new rule that will authorize the conferral in New York State of the degree of Doctor of Occupational Therapy (O.T.D.) will come to a close at the end of next week. The American Occupational Therapy Association reports : In June 2015 AOTA staff also surveyed the 152 accredited master’s-degree-level programs, with 131 (86%) responding to the survey. Of the 131 programs that responded, 106 (81%) indicated that they had started working on a transition to the doctorate and planned to have this completed within 10 years (86 within 5 years).  As I stated recently , "In my opinion the American Occupational Therapy Association Board o