Sensory Integration Consortium of Wisconsin :
SPRING MEETING 2006 Minutes
The Sensory Integration Consortium of Wisconsin is comprised of both WOTA and non-WOTA members who are
devoting efforts to advance the scope of sensory integration practice within Occupational Therapy. The promotion
of best clinical practices as well as public awareness and advocacy are the objectives we are striving for. Evolving
out of the current WOTA Sensory Integration Special Interest group, the Consortium remains a vital part of WOTA,
though non-WOTA members are also welcomed as members. Our aim is to embrace and build a state-wide
resource and network. Visit the temporary website at www.specialtherapies.com to follow the progression of our
Saturday May 20, 2006
WOTA Office Conference Room, Madison
Time: 10: a.m. - 1 p.m.
Those in attendance: Erika Kemp, Peg Williams, Laura Flood, Michelle Schmidt, Kelly Davies, Jean Schukei,
Jayne Schauer, Susan Kratz
Review minutes from Fall meeting: Some discussion was asked regarding the exclusive nature of allowing only
OTR/OT and COTA’s to join at this stage. Reviewed the position that in the developmental stages the occupational
therapy profession should shape the consortium’s mission and objectives. In the future we hope to invite other
interested professionals to join / align with our efforts. Sue suggested members go to www.spdnetwork.net for one
model of forming a statewide OT network as well as what we can build towards involving other disciplines in the
We also reviewed our history for newcomers. The consortium initially intended to be virtual and electronic, but
biannual meetings were an identified need /request last year. We discussed the need of how to keep the entire
membership informed as well as involved. Both meetings and electronic dissemination seemed the best way to
Peg suggested that there is a need to have a request / expectation for the membership to be actively participative
in order to remain an active member. Further discussion about asking the membership to consider what they see
the consortium doing for both themselves as therapists as well as for their placement of employee / clinical practice
to help determine layers of involvement that the membership can choose from
The Fall 2005 minutes were then approved by the people in attendance after Jean Schukei motioned for approval
and Michelle Schmidt seconded. We need to consult with WOTA standards for guidance in voting. For now, if
members have any additional comments, or challenges to the minutes the consortium will honor them via electronic
Go to www.specialtherapies.com for posted archives of minutes
2. Establishment of MISSION Statement
The above statement could be the rough draft. This will continue to take time to work out and we need much
input from the membership.
ALL MEMBERS….please answer this question and send comments back to Sue
WHAT DO YOU SEE THE CONSORTIUM DOING FOR YOU?
The feedback will be used to further shape the final mission statement.
We also discussed what the PUBLIC’s needs from a consortium such as this in working toward the mission
School Parents Needs: education about Sensory Integration, state and local resources for services,
A statewide list of qualified therapists and clinics, advocacy and policy
formation to promote reimbursement and inclusion into service provision,
Develop understanding between therapist’s role in different settings
Community Needs: public service announcements and newspaper articles, statewide referral network
Locate appropriate services, quality standards, uniform treatment approaches
Unification of terminology and to promote the understanding the sensory
integration treatment is functional neurology and move towards increasing public’s
understanding of the evolving nature of SI in our practice.
In either setting we want to remain conscious of not getting bogged down in semantic. Perhaps in the
mission statement we utilize numerous ways of describing sensory integration / processing / regulation, etc. and
clarify the neurology of it all in lay person understanding.
3. Proposal of a Sensory Integration “LEVELS OF SERVICE ” model was raised by Susan Kratz.
As an alternative to educating the public on the different roles of that therapists serve in different settings, which
often comes from a narrower viewpoint, perhaps a Level of Service model could be utilized in all settings. This
model could address what services are dictated by law in certain settings, the level of training and qualifications by
the staff therapists, the amount of equipment and various treatment modalities which support an S.I. approach, etc.
4. Membership drive - discuss problem solving strategies to cover the glitch of the Regulation & licensing
mailing issue where half the state's therapists opted out of receiving mailings. That meant that out of the over-
4000 therapists who are registered through Reg. & Licensing, over 2000 therapists did not get the recent mailing
holding the membership drive or survey notice. So……. we still have not reached all of Wisconsin's therapists. We
have reached every therapist we can through WOTA. Time to reach out at National level? Review current
Sue will contact AOTA for costs of reaching therapists who list S.I. as a special interest on the national level. She
will also contact NBCOT to see if they hold some data bank on this info. There will be a cost to using AOTA’s
mailing lists. But again, there appears to be no definitive way to meet the objective of reaching all Wisconsin
therapists to inform them of the consortium and invite their involvement. Pat Bober has been able to send out
messages via DPI newsletters and Sue will contact her to inquire about regular announcements.
There currently is a rough draft of a brochure for the Consortium that could be used to recruit members.
MEMBERS…..please review this brochure, or contact Sue for PDF to be emailed over. Send critical
feedback if you haven’t already and we can have Sheila or Sue’s office manager update it. You can then
print off copies of the PDF file to pass out to colleagues.
5. Share results of membership surveys returned to date (see information at end).
31 were returned. Sue is still getting a few more returned to her. If you wish to contribute your input to this survey,
contact Sue Kratz at firstname.lastname@example.org or Sheila at WOTA for a survey form.
Our discussion focused on the results that were 50% or higher to begin narrowing in primary objectives / projects.
These topics were specifically discussed;
Continuing Education: WOTA would like us to sponsor / suggest a speaker for the fall conference if
possible. Lucy Mill requested a large fee plus at least 300 people to make it worth her while. Diane Henry was
suggested. Bonnie Hanschu’s name was suggested, but we needed to remind them of her untimely passing last
year. Perhaps someone from Bonnie’s organization has carried on her legacy of excellent conferences. Sue will
try to contact them.
Wisconsin also has an opportunity to work with USC and Western Psych Pub. To bring their 4 workshop
series for Sensory Integration Certification to our state. (Each course is 1 week long and the training certifies one
to administer the SIPT as well as prepares the therapist clinically. However, there still is no certification as a
treatment provider, only a tester.) Their group needs 20 therapists committed to the process over a year’s time, or
perhaps they could spread it our over 2 years. They offer a tuition discount if all 4 classes are purchased at once.
Sounds like they are willing to work with people if the interest is there. The consortium is not specifically endorsing
the program over any others, but it is a good opportunity to work towards certification. Sensory Integration
International continues to offer their trainings as well through their own networks.
Research: A suggestion was made for a lofty goal of having every clinician conduct a Single Case Study
that followed the same format. Perhaps someone in academia / research could collaborate a study design to guide
the clinicians in establishing that format. The consortium could set a research precident of carryout such an
DEVELOPING A Website: Discussion of what is needed on the website ensued.
1. Synopsis of Journal Club
2. A working library / bibliography
3. Articles from S. I. Focus magazine
4. Students publish / post on the website
5. STATE WIDE RERERRAL NETWORK
6. Forum / Bulletin Board ….Yahoo messenger Board linked
7. Clarification of Terminology / Distionary / Glossary
8. Models of Service: Community, School Based, Mental Health
9. Summer Programs : facilities / therapists would have information / links to what is available in
10. Links to other referral sources such as FirstSteps out of LaCross
11. List Continuing Education opportunities and links to Sensory Resources, PDP,, etc etc.
12. Speaker’s Bureau: roles and limitations of the speakers, consortium volunteers to speak for
13. Product-wise resources
14. Q & A sheet
DEVELOPMENT OF A STATEWIDE REFERRAL NETWORK
At the present time the Consortium members will be notified of a request for services. Several
requests have come to Sue through the ever-growing Parent Connect which is a S.I. support group out of
Watertown and Janesville linking parents to resources in their areas. This support group originated through
Lucy Miller’s website www.spdnetwork.net which is helping to create Parent networks in every state.
6. Clarify objectives for the next year – get volunteers to start each. Any other suggestions?
a. Establishment of a state-wide speaker's bureau - several volunteers signed up. Clarify expectations, roles,
We have several names of volunteers covering a wide region. Anyone else interested, please submit your
name to Sue Kratz. Should any requests for speakers come Sue’s way, she’ll put it out to these volunteers to
b. Establishment of research & journal club - where are we at with these activities? Propose a statewide
Julia Wilbarger has developed a monthly Reading Group / Journal Club. She started this in January of
2006 on the 1 Tues of each month (excluding summer months). Attendance has ranged between 10-20 people.
This came out of the class she taught the first semester.
The Consortium has not yet been notified of this since she does not have every one’s email addresses. If
you are interested in finding out more about this contact Julia at email@example.com.
Peg Williams has also volunteered to start a journal club in the Milwaukee area (and or a Chat Room). She
would like to explore the idea of holding a branch of Julia’s idea in SE Wisconsin. Perhaps there are other people
in other districts who would also care to work with Peg and Julia to adopt a statewide network of a research /
Erika will communicate what worked out at Boston University where critically appraised topics for OT with
some SI relevant issues arose.
c. Establishment of Yahoo Chat and messase boards - seeking volunteers to help set these in motion
Peg Williams offered to look into formalizing and activating this option
e. Propose a Sensory Integration “Levels of Service Model” the can help define the differences between
treatment settings. Discussed earlier in meeting
7. Find a speaker for fall WOTA conference as a Consortium promotion - need nominations / suggestions.
Several people have approached me asking for WOTA sponsored S.I. courses and at affordable prices.
This was discussed under continuing education under member survey results.
8. We can get USC and Western Psych. S.I. certification training brought to Wisconsin for year 2007 for all four
courses if we can generate interest from at least 20 therapists.
9. Members' concerns and other topics
Several members suggested a network for clinicians to mentor each other in clinical settings and seeking
the consortium to promote that practice.
10. Last hour devoted to a Workshop on Clinical Reasoning: Assessments, Experiences, Case Studies.
Presenter: Susan Kratz, OTR, BCP, CST
Written by Laura Flood
Edited and distributed to membership by Susan Kratz
(SURVEY RESULTS BELOW)
Sensory Integration Consortium of Wisconsin
2006 Membership Survey
Final Results – 5/15/06
Total Surveys Results updated
recorded: 31 5/15/06
As an OT practitioner, what benefits would you seek from the Consortium?
Continuing Education ( all
levels) 24 77%
Reimbursement Efforts 8 26%
Source of current information 19 61%
Support for specific practice settings 16 52%
Promote your practice 7 23%
Research Information 19 61%
Clinical mentorship / training 9 29%
Journal Club 5 16%
Regular Meetings 7 23%
Guidelines for clinical competencies 16 52%
Chat rooms 9 29%
information 19 61%
Statewide referral network 15 48%
Statewide peer network 19 61%
Advocacy 11 35%
Therapy 18 58%
Continuing Education on complimentary topics 16 52%
Providers of research information to demonstrate the effectiveness of treatment interventions
Continuing Education especially in Northern Wisconsin - such as Wausau & Eau Claire
The Consortium's vision is a high priority to clarify in order to recruit more members.
Need to have more formal structure to meetings, etc. in order to get a more collaborative input from members
Need to expore the differences in how SI applies in various settings.
What role do you see the Consortium serving your clients and the public in general?
State wide referral source 18 58%
Public service announcements 15 48%
Educational brochures 20 65%
Informational web site 24 77%
Quality standards 15 48%
Clarify terminology 13 42%
Levels of interventions 13 42%
S.I. through the lifespan 15 48%
Public service education specific to tx settings 13 42%
To use the Consortium in consultation with other OT's on how to work strategies into my OT services.
Concern over too strong a focus on SI that I lose a well-rounded OT
Always interested in applying current research & best practice models into my work.
Premature to think of public service agenda until the Consortium's views and direction is clarified
Hard to think about public service needs when we need to tackle the SI issue within our profession
31 surveys returned and tallied as of 4/1/06
Degree held Years experience
OTR's with PhD 1 3% Novice 2 6%
OTR's with Masters 5 16% years 3 10%
OTR's 21 68% years 11 35%
COTA's 2 6% years 13 42%
Unidentified 1 3%
State wide representation Clinical Settings
Southeast 9 29% Private Clinic 8 26%
Southwest 4 13% School setting 11 35%
Central 8 26% Academia 1 3%
Northeast 4 13% Rehab agency 5 16%
Northwest 5 16% Hospital setting 4 13%
Birth - Three 1 3%
SCIPT / SIPT
YES - 6 19%
NO - 25 81%