The old buckeye: how do we define what we do as OT's

Thought I would post this here, its my response to the Frederick Road post and ensuing debate about core values/core skills of OT. It seems to follow on from the thoughts on my previous post......

" It's an oldie but a goodie (great students by the way Salford!). Here is the link to Jennifer Creeks "OT as a complex intervention".

My personal feeling is that we apply our core skills (which may in part be generic) to our core belief which is unique (humans as occupational beings, occupation as central to wellbeing).

The thorny issue of how OTs define the profession is inherent in its own exisistance. To understand OT you have to be involved in the occupation of occupational therapy. Lost yet? I was fortunate enough to be at a study day with Jennifer just before Christmas and she made a simple but impactful observation. The only clear way to explain is for someone to try to mimic the work of an OT, or to be the recipient, or to sit alongside the process. In other words to use engaging with the occupation of occupational therapy.

Is that too much to ask? How can pragmatically do that to promote the profession?

Would it be a pushing it so say that many people have a more clear view of say of the profession of medicine and the work of a GP as everyone has seen a GP at some point, they know when they would go and the gist of what will happen. They have sat alongside and been a recipient of that care. They have experienced the occupation of a GP appointment/intervention.

Hope that makes some sense and isn't too garbled - I'm trying to hold a baby on my knee and type at the same time!"