『Overlap Is Not Duplication: Making Space for Emerging OT Practice informed by Occupational Science』のカバーアート

Overlap Is Not Duplication: Making Space for Emerging OT Practice informed by Occupational Science

Overlap Is Not Duplication: Making Space for Emerging OT Practice informed by Occupational Science

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る
I wrote this piece in response to some discourse I was tagged in around OT’s role in sports medicine and supporting high performance athletes.The reflection is specifically in response to this three-part LinkedIn series:Part 1: What OT Adds to Sports MedicineRead the original post on LinkedInPart 2: Collaboration and Professional RolesRead the original post on LinkedInPart 3: Advocacy, Scope, and the FutureRead the original post on LinkedInMuch of the discourse in the comments was centered on concerns of overlap with athletic trainers and presumptions that what OT is offering would be essentially duplicative and disrespectful to more traditionally prominent members of the sports medicine ecosystem.I had to modify my response on LinkedIn to match their character limit, so I thought I would publish the full response here. It covers content that feels relevant to much of the endless discourse that is largely driven by shorthand misinformation, presumptions, and various insecurities that get stirred when our focus is on eliminating rather than expanding possibilities for care and innovation.Why occupational science literacy mattersA big part of why I am a proponent of increased occupational science literacy for OTPs worldwide is to encourage us to use our own distinct lens and concepts when communicating about the innovations, roots, and foundations of our practice so we can get out of this trap of being reduced to limited paradigms and understandings of other professions in bad faith.First, we tend to be undermined for possibly not having the same competencies as another discipline or profession. Then, when we reveal that we do have the same competencies, or we catch up, we are framed as essentially duplicative or redundant and not unique.This is why communicating about our identity and skills from our own foundations and core terminology, including our cosmological, philosophical, epistemic, and emerging practice developments, on our own terms, alongside the formal policy developments that have shaped our practice from the beginning, is so important.Especially if we do so with pride in our unique integrative foundations rather than shame or presumed incompetence, very often this pattern is deeply rooted in the internalization of structural sexism and misogyny as it relates to female-dominated health care professions and integrated care approaches overall.OTPs need to start recognizing that when we are met with such suspicion and accusation, it can actually be a sign of our strength and competence as a threat rather than a sign of our own incompetence or need to prove or defend ourselves where we typically already currently belong.We keep de-skilling each otherIt’s so interesting how often in this type of discourse we default to pigeonholing and limiting all skilled providers to the bare minimum of responsibilities in institutional settings.For example, often between OT and PT the discourse can reduce both professions down to upper extremity versus lower extremity, even though we all know both disciplines in the real world are full-body therapists.With the discourse around athletic trainers, it seems like we’re reducing all professions to the most basic elements of those responsibilities, rather than exploring nuanced conversations about strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, gaps, and intersections that could lead to more comprehensive care.Unlike competitive athletics, health and human services are not competitive sports.When providers compete, our clients are always the ones who lose out on comprehensive care.I also think this pattern of discourse has consequences beyond any single profession. When we continually reduce skilled professions to their bare foundations and then treat overlap at that level as evidence of duplication, we can inadvertently create conditions that discourage innovation and advancement across health and human services.The bare foundations are the floor of professional capacity, not necessarily the ceiling.If we treat the floor as the ceiling, then every advancement into an emerging specialty, every new application of foundational knowledge, and every development in professional reasoning has to first defend itself against the existence of something another profession already does.That creates a very different condition for professional development than asking what becomes possible when skilled professionals build beyond their foundations.Overlap is not duplicationOverlap between providers is not new and never has been new. It’s actually essential to communication and efficiency for there to be essential overlap.One profession having a specific body area or modality in their scope does not mean that it is somehow unlawful or an automatic restriction or duplication for another provider to be skilled and competent in those areas. It simply means more than one profession has core competencies to perform a specific function.It means there are options rather than a basis for ...
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません