An analysis of how small changes can potentially lead to unintended consequences in a motion

An analysis of the recent motion to update policy E.6 Entry Level Education is offered for consideration.Please refer to the following for background information:A Motion to Update Policy E.6 Entry-Level Education of Occupational Therapists and Occupational Therapy Assistantsand alsoAOTA ' s claim to authority over entry level degree requirementsROADMAP FOR UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE:To understand the problems with the wording changes you need to read and understand the first policy as it is written in the policy manual.  Then you have to read and understand the motion that was submitted to update.  Then you have to read and understand what the RA actually passed.  All of this has to be considered in context of an unknown relationship between AOTA and ACOTE.  There is no way to dive into the weeds of this issue without reading all of the materials.  There is simply no way to condense it.+++The original policy E.6 statesThe motion that was submitted to update the policy used specific language that mirrored the current policy and that was last reviewed in April 2011.  The same language was recommended so as to eliminate unnecessary wordsmithing.  In sum, if the language was good enough for the current policy then it would probably be close to good enough for the updated policy. Please note that this language has been present as AOTA policy for MANY YEARS and no one has ever before considered that this policy caused any confusion.+++The motion to ...
Source: ABC Therapeutics Occupational Therapy Weblog - Category: Occupational Health Tags: policy Source Type: blogs