Occupational therapists’ judgement of referral priorities: Expertise and training

This thesis was submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel University.The British government currently requires mental health services to be targeted at the most needy (Department of Health, 1999). For occupational therapy services, where service demand far exceeds service availability, skill in referral prioritisation is essential. The studies in this thesis describe how experienced occupational therapists’ referral prioritisation policies were used to successfully educate novices. 40 British occupational therapists’ referral prioritisation policies were modelled using judgement analysis. Individuals’ prioritisation decisions were regressed onto 90 referral scenarios to statistically model how referral information had been used. It was found that the reason for referral, history of violence and diagnosis were most important. The occupational therapists’ capacity for self-insight into their policies was also examined by comparing statistically modelled policies derived from their behaviour with their subjective view of their cue use. Self-insight was found to be moderate (mean r = 0.61). A Ward’s cluster analysis was used on the statistically modelled policies to identify if subgroups of therapists had differing referral prioritisation policies. Four clusters were found. They differed according to several factors including the percentage of role dedicated to specialist occupational therapy rather than generic work. The policies that led to more of an occupational therapy role were found to give particular importance to the reason for referral and the client’s diagnosis. The occupational therapy professional body supports this latter method of working as it has recommended that occupational therapists should use their specialist skills to ensure clients’ needs are met effectively. Therefore the policies that focussed on clients’ occupational functioning were used to train the novices. Thirty-seven students were asked to prioritise a set of referrals before and after being shown graphical and descriptive representations of the policies. Students gained statistically significant improvements in prioritisation. Students’ pre-training policies were found to be those of generic therapists; a method of working that has been found to be leading to reduced work satisfaction and burnout (Craik et al.1998b). The training is therefore needed to ensure undergraduate occupational therapy students develop effective referral prioritisation skills. This will help to ensure that clients’ needs are met most effectively and work stress is reduce

Occupational therapists’ self-insight into their referral prioritisation policies for clients with mental health needs

BACKGROUND/AIM: Obtaining valid accounts of professionals' thinking is dependent upon experts' capacity for self-insight. Self-insight has implications for developing professional decision making, facilitating education and promoting agreement among therapists. The aim of this study was to examine occupational therapists' self-insight into their referral prioritisation policies. METHODS: A total of 40 occupational therapists individually rated the importance that differing types of referral content had on their prioritisation of referrals. These subjective policies were then correlated with their objective referral prioritisation policies that had been previously statistically derived. RESULTS: Self-insight was found to be moderate but with wide variation across individuals and across referral information used. Self-insight on cues that were important to the decision was found to be better than on those cues not so important to the decision. CONCLUSIONS:   Occupational therapists have similar levels of self-insight to other professional groups. The 'attention hypothesis' may explain why self-insight varied across referral information used

A systematic review of effective interventions and strategies to support the transition of older adults from driving to driving retirement/cessation

Background and Objectives: In most western countries, older adults depend on private cars for transportation and do not proactively plan for driving cessation. The objective of this review was to examine current research studies outlining effective interventions and strategies to assist older adults during their transition from driver to driving retirement or cessation. Research Design and Methods: A search was completed across 9 databases using key words and MeSH terms for drivers, cessation of driving, and older adult drivers. Eligibility screening of 9,807 titles and abstracts, followed by a detailed screening of 206 papers, was completed using the Covidence platform. Twelve papers were selected for full-text screen and data extraction, comprising 3 papers with evidence-based intervention programs and 9 papers with evidence-informed strategies. Results: Three papers met the research criteria of a controlled study for programs that support and facilitate driving cessation for older adults. Nine additional studies were exploratory or descriptive, which outlined strategies that could support older drivers, their families, and/or healthcare professionals during this transition. Driving retirement programs/toolkits are also presented. Discussion and Implications: The driver retirement programs had promising results, but there were methodological weaknesses within the studies. Strategies extracted contributed to 6 themes: Reluctance and avoidance of the topic, multiple stakeholder involvement is important, taking proactive approach is critical, refocus the process away from assessment to proactive planning, collaborative approach to enable “ownership” of the decision is needed, and engage in planning alternative transportation should be the end result. Meeting the transportation needs of older adults will be essential to support aging in place, out-of-home mobility, and participation, particularly in developed countries where there is such a high dependency on private motor vehicles. © The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America