Close

Archive for category: Automobile Safety and Insurance

by

So I Guess Your Kid Doesn’t Wear A Seat Belt Either?

Julie Entwistle, MBA, BHSc (OT), BSc (Health / Gerontology)

I get very confused when I see children riding bikes without helmets.  Over the last many years the safety benefits of a helmet for biking, skiing, skateboarding, ice skating (and many other sports) has been well studied.  Research shows that helmets can be extremely effective in preventing head injuries and ¾ of all cycling fatalities are the result of head trauma.  You don’t even have to hit a car or tree to sustain a head injury – the ground or even your handlebars are often enough.

The laws in Ontario are clear:  since October 1, 1995 anyone under the age of 18 is required to ride a helmet on a road or sidewalk (http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/safety/helmet/helmet_law.htm).  Based on an increasing number of adult cycling deaths by head injury, it is likely that this law will soon be extended to adults as it is in other provinces.

So, considering the laws and the well-publicised risks, why are children (including young children) still seen riding bikes without helmets?

As adults, I recognize that we were not raised to wear helmets.  Adopting this practice has been difficult as we find it unnatural, maybe uncomfortable, and probably uncool.  However, most of us likely wear seatbelts when in a vehicle.  Why?  BECAUSE WE WERE RAISED THAT WAY.  Seatbelt laws in Ontario were passed in 1976 and so many of us were raised in the era of this as mandatory.  Many of us probably don’t even have to think about our seatbelt anymore as it is part of our regular “get-in-the-car” routine and we feel naked and exposed without it.  We need to apply the same concept of “normal” to our children regarding helmets. 

There are two main reasons why children need to wear helmets.  1. They are safe and have been shown to save lives and reduce disability.  2.  IT IS THE LAW.  As a parent, by not requiring that your child wear a helmet on their bike you are not only putting them at risk, but are also teaching them that laws don’t matter.  And I am not talking about the diligent parents whose children leave the house with a helmet on, to later have this on their handlebars or undone on their head.   I am mostly talking about the young kids in my neighbourhood who are out on their bikes without helmets, often under the supervision of their parents, and are thus not being taught that helmets are law, mandatory, and safe.

I am going to hazard a guess that no parent would put their child in a car without a seat-belt.  Heck, child seats are also law and until a certain age these are five point and offer more protection than the adult restraint.  So, for the same reasons you put your child in a seatbelt (protection and law) you need to ensure they are wearing a helmet for biking (skating, skiing, skateboarding).  And lead by example – get a helmet for yourself and model the appropriate behavior.  And be firm: no helmet should equal no bike.  No discussion.

by

Occupational Therapist Sued Over a Reacher

Julie Entwistle, MBA, BHSc (OT), BSc (Health / Gerontology)

I am getting increasingly frustrated at the failure of other OT’s to understand the value of education when prescribing equipment.  While it might seem on the surface that use of a reacher, tub scrubber or bath mat are “common sense”, my experience is that common sense is not common, and I don’t want my license on the line.

Take a reacher for example.  I have seen people use them as a cane.  Or people who have one that is too short and almost fall out of their chair trying to access that item that is “just a little further”.  Maybe they think that reacher can handle the over-sized glass jar of pickles and when it doesn’t the jar ends up shattering on the counter in front of them, landing on their lap, or worse, their head.  To send something to someone in the mail, and to indicate that “education is not necessary” exposes the OT to liability and the client to risk.

Why don’t OT’s hear about stories of devices gone array?  Mainly because when an OT is sued over a piece of equipment, the case can take years to resolve and when it does, the OT is sworn to secrecy about the outcome, otherwise they can be sued for breach of settlement.  So OT’s: don’t think these lawsuits don’t happen!

In the world of insurance there is funding for equipment and funding for education to ensure that the equipment is appropriate and the client can safely and independently demonstrate its use.  I have had to return many-a-things that I thought looked great on paper to find out they don’t actually work for that client in that case.  As OT’s we need to take our prescription responsibilities seriously and should never jeopardize our education, training or experience under the assumption that someone will properly use an item we consider “low risk”.

So, when I prescribe devices, and ask an insurer to fund time for an OTA or myself to provide them, it is because that is part of my judiciary duty to my client, my college, my license, my training, and my sense of responsibility.  If another OT feels the device is suitable, but says education is not required, then they can feel free to order those devices themselves and run the direct liability risk of being sued over a reacher.