Breakfast Club : a Functional Approach To Achieving Occupational Therapy Rehabilitation intensity Goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In 2016, the inpatient stroke rehabilitation occupational therapy (OT) team at Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS) initiated the development of a therapeutic group called u2018Breakfast Clubu2019. This program was developed to improve OT rehabilitation intensity goals, while providing functional rehabilitation opportunities. In Canada, rehabilitation intensity is the time that patients are engaged in individualized & task-specific treatment with a therapist. Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations (CSBPR) advises that patients should receive such therapy 3 hours/day, 5 days/week.[i]Summary: Breakfast Club is a weekly 1.5 hour therapeutic group with an occupational therapist, OTA/PTA, and 2-4 patients. The group occurs in a circuit format that includes chopping vegetables, making coffee, preparing breakfast, cooking at the stove, eating, and washing dishes. The circuit format allows more opportunity for direct therapy & monitoring of patients by a therapist, which increases rehabilitation intensity time. Breakfast Club provides a functional context for patients to work on individualized goals, including upper extremity task-specific training, cognitive remediation, visual scanning, balance & mobility, social interaction & communication, and/or practice using compensatory strategies or equipment. It also addresses CSBPR recommendations for individualized interventions with an aim of resuming participation in desired activities for patients with impaired cognition post-stroke.[ii]Conclusion: CSBPR states that in stroke rehabilitation, more therapy results in better patient outcomes.[iii] Breakfast Club is an innovative method utilized by the HHS inpatient stroke rehabilitation OT team to increase rehabilitation intensity time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.019 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".