Enabling Access to Rehabilitation in Acute Care: Exploring Physiotherapists’ and Occupational Therapists’ Perspectives on Patient Care When Assistants Become the Primary Therapy Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore physiotherapists’ and occupational therapists’ perspectives on how the implementation of a new model of care in the acute medicine setting has affected their practice and patient care outcomes. Method: A qualitative case study was used to gain an in-depth understanding of therapists’ experiences. Semi-structured, in-person interviews (45–60 min long) were conducted with eight clinicians (four occupational therapists and four physiotherapists). We used an iterative process of discussion and questioning to interpret the themes emerging from the data. Results: The findings are grouped into four categories – change in the therapist–patient relationship, change in therapists’ access to first-hand patient information, developing processes to enhance information exchange, and developing processes to support patient care delivery – and two themes – therapists’ expectations of patient care outcomes and redefining the value of the occupational therapists’ and physiotherapists’ role in contributing to patient care. Conclusions: Participants described the process of adapting their professional skills and behaviours as they evolved into the role of manager of therapy care. Occupational therapists and physiotherapists recognized the potential for occupational therapist assistants (OTAs) and physiotherapist assistants (PTAs) to provide more frequent and consistent care. The therapists highlighted the necessity of ensuring that effective working processes and interactions between the therapist and the OTAs and PTAs were in place to ensure high-quality patient care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".