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]

Aim: To explore what the obstacles are that deter patients from continuing stroke rehabilitation after discharge from hospital in Singapore. Methods: In this qualitative study, individual semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Thirty one stroke patients, who had been discharged from the hospital after inpatient rehabilitation (mean age=66.46 years, mean duration postdischarge= 95.82 days), were interviewed. Results: Five themes were identified as obstacles to post-discharge stroke rehabilitation including: the means to access rehabilitative services; lapse in discharge coordination; family members’ views and actions; discrepancies in expectation; and the perception that rehabilitation is simple. Participants indicated a need for timely and appropriate information, delivered according to their individualised needs. Conclusion: Study findings revealed that the absence of a smooth transition through the continuum of stroke care and not having a common understanding of rehabilitation accounts for the lack of adherence to therapy recommendations. The results suggest that clinicians need to be more aware of their role in providing well-coordinated information about therapy. The study also highlighted the need to review the goal-setting processes that guide the course of rehabilitation. Goals should be more patient-centred to reduce the discrepancies in expectations of rehabilitation. There needs to be a greater involvement of carers in discharge planning to minimise the dissatisfaction in care arrangements and information delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Returning to driving is often a goal for people with acquired disabilities. Vehicle modifications make it possible for people with both acquired and lifelong disabilities to drive yet can be costly. There has been no financial evaluation of vehicle modifications in Australia or internationally. Methods: A social return on investment analysis of vehicle modifications was undertaken. Primary data were collected via qualitative interviews with consumers and other stakeholders (e.g. driver‐trained occupational therapists, rehabilitation physicians, driving instructors, vehicle modifiers) (n = 23). Secondary data were collected from literature searches and used to identify suitable financial proxies and make estimations of the proportion of drivers with vehicle modifications experiencing each outcome. A co‐investment model was adopted to estimate social return on investment and payback period for funder and consumer. Five scenarios were developed to illustrate social return for low‐cost modifications (Scenario 1) through to high‐cost modifications (Scenario 5). Results: Social return on investment ratios was positive for funder and consumer investment in all five scenarios. Social return on investment calculations based on co‐investment ranged from $17.32 for every $1 invested (Scenario 1) to $2.78 for every $1 invested (Scenario 5). Consumers' payback periods were between 5.4 and 7.1 months, and funders between 3.5 weeks and 2 years 8.4 months. Conclusion: Vehicle modifications represent sound investments for both funders and consumers. Given the short payback periods, funders should reconsider age restrictions on vehicles considered suitable for modifications, especially for low‐ to medium‐cost modifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]