Search

Introduction: Driver‐trained occupational therapists are advanced practitioners who work with people to help maintain their independence and autonomy through driving. There is a lack of investigation of professional reasoning processes for why interventions are recommended by driver‐trained occupational therapists. This research project sought to explore the reasoning of driver‐trained occupational therapists when they plan, implement, and reflect on driver rehabilitation interventions. Methods: In‐depth semistructured interviews (n = 7) and one focus group (n = 5) were conducted with 12 experienced driver‐trained occupational therapists, comprising a wide range of experience, client populations, and licensing jurisdictions. Data were analysed using a modified template analysis approach. Results: Seven higher order modes that reflect professional reasoning theory and hierarchical models were evident in the work of the driver‐trained occupational therapists, with no new modes of reasoning emerging. Ethical reasoning regarding the balance of safety versus client independence was an overarching shared framework, with therapists mostly using interactive and conditional reasoning in practice. Twenty‐three second‐level themes were identified that exemplify how the reasoning modes operate in practice. Therapists described assessment activity even when solely asked about intervention, indicating the importance of assessment to intervention design. The full hierarchy of reasoning was evident during the rehabilitation phase. Conclusion: These findings elucidate the application of professional reasoning in advanced occupational therapy practices and could support driver‐trained occupational therapists in making driving rehabilitation recommendations if used in reflective practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aim Home visits, used by occupational therapists to facilitate independence and enhance safety, are effective but costly and time consuming. This research aims to establish the level of agreement in equipment prescribed by occupational therapists using: digital photographs only, and using home visits and digital photographs, respectively. Method Quasi-experimental methodological design conducted in private dwellings in the community in Adelaide with rehabilitation patients and their family members. The equipment recommended by occupational therapists for the toilet and bathroom using similar methods (both digital photographs from previous data; n = 5) was compared with equipment recommended using different methods (conventional home visits vs. digital photographs; n = 14). Results Percent agreement for equipment prescribed between groups, that is digital only and home visit/photography, respectively, were: 72.5/83.9% for toilet; 87.4/88.3% for bathroom and 83/87% for toilet and bathroom. Variability of agreement in the equipment prescribed showed that some items of equipment were incongruently prescribed, by both methods for toilet and bathroom areas. Conclusion Using digital photographs taken by family members, patient information, and an equipment list is a reliable method of making accurate equipment prescriptions in the toilet and bathroom areas. To enhance accuracy, in-depth patient information via face-to-face interview and measurements of physical environment should be included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]