Maria Wikeby1, Birgitta Lundgren Pierre, Birgitha Archenholtz. 1. Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Competence Centre for Schizophrenia, Psychosis Section, Department of Psychiatry, Psykosteamet Järntorget, Järntorgsgatan 12-14, SE-413 01 Göteborg, Sweden. Maria.Wikeby@vgregion.se
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to describe the reflections on practice in a group of Swedish occupational therapists in psychiatric care in order to illuminate the present practice and ideas about the future using a Delphi survey of three rounds. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The sample consisted of 14 occupational therapists in psychiatric care. The answers from the first and second rounds illustrate the wide variation in their practice. The third round points out consensus and disagreements in the domains: professional role, theories in practice, domain of concern, occupational therapy assessment, goal setting/treatment, outcome/evaluation and thoughts about the future. A consensus was reached in all domains, but not regarding competence to treat functional reduction and symptoms, or on the importance of theories for documentation, the choice of a theoretical foundation, and the importance of an evidence-based treatment model, although the theories were seen as supporting practice. Disagreements were found as to the effectiveness of repeated assessments as a means of evaluation. The future for OTs within psychiatric care was looked upon as positive. DISCUSSION: The results developed from providing a relatively unclear and shallow perspective on OT practice to indicating a depth that shows what occupational therapy within psychiatry can be. During the process it became more and more clear how OTs think and act.
AIM: The aim of this study was to describe the reflections on practice in a group of Swedish occupational therapists in psychiatric care in order to illuminate the present practice and ideas about the future using a Delphi survey of three rounds. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The sample consisted of 14 occupational therapists in psychiatric care. The answers from the first and second rounds illustrate the wide variation in their practice. The third round points out consensus and disagreements in the domains: professional role, theories in practice, domain of concern, occupational therapy assessment, goal setting/treatment, outcome/evaluation and thoughts about the future. A consensus was reached in all domains, but not regarding competence to treat functional reduction and symptoms, or on the importance of theories for documentation, the choice of a theoretical foundation, and the importance of an evidence-based treatment model, although the theories were seen as supporting practice. Disagreements were found as to the effectiveness of repeated assessments as a means of evaluation. The future for OTs within psychiatric care was looked upon as positive. DISCUSSION: The results developed from providing a relatively unclear and shallow perspective on OT practice to indicating a depth that shows what occupational therapy within psychiatry can be. During the process it became more and more clear how OTs think and act.
Authors: Jacob Hill; Wendy Hodsdon; Jacob Schor; Neil McKinney; Daniel Rubin; Dugald Seely; Gurdev Parmar; Tim Birdsall; Lise Alschuler; Davis Lamson; Shauna Birdsall; Heather Zwickey Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 3.279