Hi Simon,
> --
> I do feel strongly that the medical and the educational strands of AT
> should
> be working together more closely in a complementary fashion, rather than
> working in parallel as you say. Some barriers need to be broken down and
> we
> all need to be communicating a lot better...
> --
>
> It's impossible to disagree with this (like a Tony Blair soundbite) - but
> what does this (taken as a summary of the previous conversation),
> actually,
> specifically, MEAN?!
You've answered it here...
> Every opportunity I get to work with anyone (not just education - i.e.
> SCH,
> VolSec, Access to work, ....) outside my current immediate environment
> (that
> happens to be health based) I jump at. In my assessments I make specific
> efforts to invite anyone and everyone from other sectors... I try to be
> involved in cross-sector projects... That said, i'm open to suggestions
> where I could be working more collaboratively?
Seems to be a very healthy way of working to me, but you are working in a
very good environment! I'm not sure if everyone gets that sort of
opportunity to work in such an open way, or they may be unaware of the AT
needs of Education, or they feel they've got enough work to do without
getting involved, or...
> E.g. the recent accusation on this list about the perceived Telecare/Comm
> Alarm/SCH divide. Fine, perhaps this divide is real, but what shall we DO
> about it?! My reaction to this was to asking that the person highlighting
> the devide be invited to talk at RESMAG, what else?
>
> The people that think there is a divide (and this includes me!) should DO
> something about it! Invite people from other sectors to conferences, go
> talk to them, read their magazines and mailing groups, highlight
> non-collaborative practice, list specific constructive ideas for
> collaboration on this list...
You'll get no argument from me, that's the way to do it!
> In terms of more resources for finding kit - i'm not sure how this ties up
> with the cross-sector debate. In parallel with other industries there are
> lots of (competing) sources of information on things and the skill of a
> practitioner is to find them and exploit them. At the moment there are
> lots
> of sources of this information (across the sectors), if people want to
> create new ones, great.
I still think that it is quite possible for someone working in AT for
education to learn from someone working in the medical strand of AT or
vice-versa.
Discerning what is good and bad about different companies and their products
takes time. Most companies would claim that their particular product range
is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but how do we judge that is true?
We build up our skills through years of experience. What happens if our
choice of equipment in our early days is incorrect or slightly off? Either a
new device has to be purchased (waste of money?) or the equipment user is
stuck with it (not ideal). A good example of this is in AAC devices. There's
dedicated and computer-based. No-one has sat down and critiqued the pros and
cons of each type and I've seen some misunderstanding and lack of knowledge
about the differences. Even if it doesn't matter, wouldn't it be good to
have a set of guidelines that state this?
Personally, I'd prefer it if there were a small number of good resources
that can give guidance to the young professional or can help existing one's
keep up with the multitude of different products. It's better to have 5 good
resources that work together and can be more consistent in their approach
than dozens with a slightly different or contrary approach. Guy's idea of a
repository of knowledge would seem to be the best way to go, but that
requires people to get involved around a large table (physically or
otherwise) and debate the pros & cons of equipment out there. This should
ideally involve medical and educational AT providers. Even if medical and
educational AT providers don't altogether agree on an approach, it might
increase awareness of each others needs?
Cheers,
Aidan.
|