MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7009550088

An exploration into the effectiveness of an occupational therapy service evaluation tool for a GP practice in Ayrshire

2021· dissertation· en· W7009550088 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueQueen Margaret University Publications Repository (Queen Margaret University) · 2021
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGeneral partnershipOccupational therapyThematic analysisReferralService (business)Government (linguistics)Psychological interventionMental health
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Executive Summary The following project was created in partnership with an NHS service in South Ayrshire, who provide occupational therapy assessment and intervention within a General Practitioner’s (GP) practice. The role is a temporary funded position, endorsed by Action 15 of the Mental Health Strategy (Scottish Government 2017a), alongside additional funding through NES Career Fellowship (NHS Scotland 2020). In order to sustain the role being developed, the service are expected to demonstrate the unique contribution and impact of occupational therapy. This was considered pivotal in influencing commissioning decisions and securing future funding to remain as part of the primary care workforce. The team initially developed their own service evaluation tool; however, concerns were raised regarding its effectiveness. An evaluation into the staff’s perceptions and experiences regarding the tool was therefore carried out, to explore these issues in more depth. Three semi-structured interviews were conducted and through thematic analysis, two themes and six subthemes were developed. Findings support current literature regarding data deemed valuable to obtain when evidencing the impact of a service to stakeholders, such as the patient’s satisfaction and their outcomes. New insights also emerged, such as the importance of documenting referral sources, so education around occupational therapy can be given to members of the multi disciplinary team (MDT) who are referring less frequently. A particular emphasis was placed on the limitations regarding the current tool, resulting in participants concluding that the impact of occupational therapy interventions are not being captured to their fullest extent. Key issues concerned language, timing and participant’s understanding of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) (Law et al. 2014). Unanticipated issues arose, relating to inconsistences in terminology used by participants to describe the service’s aims, specifically frequent use of the word ‘function.’ Literature suggests this may restrict the profession from highlighting its distinct role in enabling occupation (Wilding and Whiteford 2008). Unrecognised professions may struggle to achieve appropriate remuneration; as a result, the service’s long-term viability may be jeopardised due to a lack of adequate representation regarding occupational therapy’s value in primary care. It was recommended that the service clarify their aims and intended outcomes, so that patients, GPs and funders know the exact purpose of occupational therapy practice (Bitel 2007). It was further recommended that the service consider deploying the COPM as a standardised outcome measure, to either complement or replace the existing tool. This may support the service in detecting change in patients as a result of occupational therapy interventions, whilst potentially promoting the use of occupation-focused language (Maclean and Breckenridge 2015). However, the team may benefit from developing their understanding and awareness regarding the COMP’s theoretical underpinnings. The project may be of interest to those developing services within primary care and a conference abstract for the 18th WFOT Conference (2022) is included in appendix 1.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,417
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,000
Communication savante0,0000,007
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,069
Tête enseignante GPT0,414
Écart entre enseignants0,345 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueQueen Margaret University Publications Repository (Queen Margaret University)Même sujetOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchTravaux en français237 207