Evaluation of a driving clinical decision pathway for generalist occupational therapists: Pilot test of practice change.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1080/11038128.2024.2423712
Hayley M Scott, Anne M Baker, Carolyn A Unsworth
{"title":"Evaluation of a driving clinical decision pathway for generalist occupational therapists: Pilot test of practice change.","authors":"Hayley M Scott, Anne M Baker, Carolyn A Unsworth","doi":"10.1080/11038128.2024.2423712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Few evidence-based resources exist to support generalist occupational therapists address driving in practice. This pilot study aimed to evaluate whether a driving clinical decision pathway can assist generalist occupational therapists to address driving with clients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a before (Timepoint-1) and after (Timepoint-2) design, data were collected at a multi-site outpatient community rehabilitation service. Medical record audits documenting how driving was addressed in practice and descriptive surveys of therapist's perceptions of pathway use were collected at Timepoints 1 and 2. A driving clinical decision pathway was implemented over 6 months. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to analyse and compare data over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Timepoint-1 data from 102 client medical records, and 13 clinician surveys were compared against Timepoint-2 data from 144 records and 8 surveys. Following implementation of the pathway, the number of assessments used by generalist occupational therapists increased three-fold, to inform driving process recommendations which increased two-fold. Clinicians' self-reported knowledge, skills and confidence also increased two-fold.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A comprehensive driving clinical decision pathway provided clinicians with increased structure and support to guide practice change and promote role fulfilment in addressing return to driving with adults following a change in health status.</p>","PeriodicalId":49570,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2024.2423712","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Few evidence-based resources exist to support generalist occupational therapists address driving in practice. This pilot study aimed to evaluate whether a driving clinical decision pathway can assist generalist occupational therapists to address driving with clients.

Methods: Using a before (Timepoint-1) and after (Timepoint-2) design, data were collected at a multi-site outpatient community rehabilitation service. Medical record audits documenting how driving was addressed in practice and descriptive surveys of therapist's perceptions of pathway use were collected at Timepoints 1 and 2. A driving clinical decision pathway was implemented over 6 months. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to analyse and compare data over time.

Results: Timepoint-1 data from 102 client medical records, and 13 clinician surveys were compared against Timepoint-2 data from 144 records and 8 surveys. Following implementation of the pathway, the number of assessments used by generalist occupational therapists increased three-fold, to inform driving process recommendations which increased two-fold. Clinicians' self-reported knowledge, skills and confidence also increased two-fold.

Conclusion: A comprehensive driving clinical decision pathway provided clinicians with increased structure and support to guide practice change and promote role fulfilment in addressing return to driving with adults following a change in health status.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全科职业治疗师临床决策驱动路径评估:实践变革试点测试。
背景:目前,很少有循证资源可支持全科职业治疗师在实践中处理驾驶问题。本试点研究旨在评估驾驶临床决策路径是否能帮助全科职业治疗师解决客户的驾驶问题:方法:采用事前(时间点-1)和事后(时间点-2)设计,在一个多站点门诊社区康复服务机构收集数据。在时间点 1 和 2 收集了记录在实践中如何处理驾驶问题的病历审计以及治疗师对路径使用看法的描述性调查。驾驶临床决策路径的实施历时 6 个月。使用描述性统计和内容分析来分析和比较不同时期的数据:将时间点 1 的 102 份客户医疗记录和 13 份临床医生调查数据与时间点 2 的 144 份记录和 8 份调查数据进行比较。在实施该路径后,全科职业治疗师使用的评估数量增加了三倍,为推动流程建议提供信息的数量增加了两倍。临床医生自我报告的知识、技能和信心也增加了两倍:综合驾驶临床决策路径为临床医生提供了更多的结构和支持,以指导实践变革,并促进他们在解决成人健康状况改变后恢复驾驶时的角色履行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
15.80%
发文量
45
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy is an internationally well-recognized journal that aims to provide a forum for occupational therapy research worldwide and especially the Nordic countries. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy welcomes: theoretical frameworks, original research reports emanating from quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies, literature reviews, case studies, presentation and evaluation of instruments, evaluation of interventions, learning and teaching in OT, letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
Occupational therapy's oversight: How science veiled our humanity. Cognitive interviews on the Swedish occupational balance questionnaire. Occupational therapy in the space of artificial intelligence: Ethical considerations and human-centered efforts. Evaluation of a driving clinical decision pathway for generalist occupational therapists: Pilot test of practice change. Developmental coordination disorder questionnaire - translation and adaptation into Danish.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1