Evidence supports validity of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART), but clinical utility remains unverified.
Purpose.
This study aimed to investigate occupational therapists’ perceptions about the PC-PART’s clinical utility for inpatient rehabilitation.
Method.
Using mixed methods, occupational therapists who had used the PC-PART as part of a research study in an inpatient rehabilitation setting completed a questionnaire (n = 9) and participated in a focus group (n = 6) to explore their perspectives about its clinical utility. Quantitative data were summarized and qualitative data analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.
Findings.
Quantitative data highlighted both positive and negative aspects of the PC-PART’s clinical utility. Five themes emerged from the qualitative data: nature of information gathered; familiarity with the instrument; perceived time and effort; item phrasing, interpretation, and presentation; and external influences on clinical use.
Implications.
The PC-PART was perceived to support gathering of clinically useful information, helpful to intervention and discharge planning. Recommendations for improving some item phrasing, operational definitions, and instructions were identified. Although standardized assessments were valued, use in routine practice was challenging, requiring a knowledge translation strategy.
BarbaraA.WhitefordG. (2005). Clinical utility of the Handicap Assessment and Resource Tool: An investigation of its use with the aged people in hospital. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 52, 17–25. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1630.2005.00476.x
BowmanJ. (2006). Challenges to measuring outcomes in occupational therapy: A qualitative focus group study. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 464–471. doi:10.1177/030802260606901005
5.
BowmanJ.LlewellynG. (2002). Clinical outcomes research from the occupational therapist’s perspective. Occupational Therapy International, 9, 145–166.
6.
CameronD.LeslieM.TeplickyR.PollockN.StewartD.ToalC.GaikS. (2001). The clinical utility of the test of playfulness. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, 104–111. doi:10.1177/000841740106800206
7.
ColquhounH. L.LettsL.LawM.MacDermidJ. C.MissiunaC. A. (2012). Administration of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: Effect on practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79, 120–128. doi:10.2182/cjot.2012.79.2.7
8.
CookC.McCluskeyA.BowmanJ. (2007). Occupational therapists report increased use of outcome measures after participation in an education programme. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70, 487–492. doi:10.1177/030802260707001107
9.
CreswellJ.Plano ClarkV. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
DannemillerK.JacobsR. (1992). Changing the way organisations change: A revolution of common sense. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 28, 480–498. doi:10.1177/0021886392284003
11.
DarzinsP. (2004). PC-PART: Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool user’s manual. Melbourne, Australia: PART Group.
DarzinsS.ImmsC.Di StefanoM. (2013). Measurement properties of the personal care participation assessment and resource tool: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35, 265–281. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.690819
14.
DarzinsS.ImmsC.Di StefanoM.TaylorN.PallantJ. (2014). Evaluation of the internal construct validity of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) using Rasch analysis. BMC Health Services Research, 14, Article 543. doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0543-z
15.
GrahamI.LoganJ.HarrisonM.StrausS. E.TetroeJ.CaswellW.RobinsonN. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26, 13–24. doi:10.1002/chp.47
16.
GrimshawJ. M.EcclesM. P.LavisJ. N.HillS. J.SquiresJ. E. (2012). Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science, 7, Article 50. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-50
17.
GustafssonL. A.MitchellG.FlemingJ.PriceG. (2012). Clinical utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in spinal cord injury rehabilitation. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75, 337–342. doi:10.4276/030802212X13418284515910
18.
GustafssonL. A.TurpinM. J.DormanC. M. (2010). Clinical utility of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory for stroke rehabilitation. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77, 167–173. doi:10.2182/cjot.2010.77.3.6
19.
KitsosG.HarrisD.PollackM.HubbardI. (2011). Assessments in Australian stroke rehabilitation units: A systematic review of the post-stroke validity of the most frequently used. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33, 2620–2632. doi:10.3109/09638288.2011.575526
20.
KohC.-L.HoffmannT.BennettS.McKennaK. T. (2009). Management of patients with cognitive impairment after stroke: A survey of Australian occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 56, 324–331. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1630.2008.00764.x
21.
Laver-FawcettA. (2007). Principles of assessment and outcome measurement for occupational therapists and physiotherapists: Theory, skills and application. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
22.
LawM. (1987). Measurement in occupational therapy: scientific criteria for evaluation. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 133–138. doi:10.1177/000841748705400308
LawM.KingG.RussellD. (2005). Guiding therapist decisions about measuring outcomes in occupational therapy. In LawM.BaumC.DunnW. (Eds.), Measuring occupational performance: supporting best practice in occupational therapy (2nd ed., pp. 33–44). Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
25.
LiamputtongP. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principles and practice. London, UK: Sage.
26.
MaddenR.FortuneN.CheesemanD.MpofuE.BundyA. (2013). Fundamental questions before recording or measuring functioning and disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35, 1092–1096. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.720350
27.
MoatsG. (2007). Discharge decision-making, enabling occupations, and client-centred practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74, 91–101. doi:10.1177/000841740707400203
28.
NewP.CameronP. A.OlverJ. H.StoelwinderJ. U. (2013). Defining barriers to discharge from inpatient rehabilitation, classifying their causes, and proposed performance indicators for rehabilitation patient flow. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94, 201–208. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2012.07.026
29.
PilegaardM.PilegaardB.BirnI.KristensenH. (2014). Assesssment of occupational performance problems due to cognitive deficits in stroke rehabilitation: A survey. International Jounal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 21, 280–288. doi:10.12968/ijtr.2014.21.6.280
30.
PumpaL. U.CahillL. S.CareyL. M. (2015). Somatosensory assessment and treatment after stroke: an evidence-practice gap. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 62, 93–104. doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12170
31.
Radia-GeorgeC.ImmsC.TaylorN. (2014). The inter-rater reliability and clinical utility of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) in an inpatient rehabilitation setting. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, 334–343. doi:10.5014/ajot.2014.009878
32.
SchofieldM.KnaussC. (2010). Surveys and questionnaires in health research. In LiamputtongP. (Ed.), Research methods in health: Foundations for evidence-based practice (pp. 213–236). South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
33.
ShepperdS.McClaranJ.PhillipsC.LanninN.ClemsonL.McCluskeyA.…BarrasS. (2010). Discharge planning from hospital to home. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2010(1). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000313.pub3
34.
SmartA. (2006). A multi-dimensional model of clinical utility. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 18, 377–382. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzl034
SquiresJ.SullivanK.EcclesM.WorswickJ.GrimshawJ. (2014). Are multifacted interventions more effective than single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals’ behaviours? An overview of systematic reviews. Implementation Science, 9, Article 152. doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0152-6
37.
StapletonT.McBreartyC. (2009). Use of standardised assessments and outcome measures among a sample of Irish occupational therapists working with adults with physical disabilities. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 55–64. doi:10.1177/030802260907200203
38.
TaylorN. F.BruscoN. K.WattsJ. J.ShieldsN.PeirisC.SullivanN.…Radia-GeorgeC. (2010). A study protocol of a randomised controlled trial incorporating a health economic analysis to investigate if additional allied health services for rehabilitation reduce length of stay without compromising patient outcomes. BMC Health Services Research, 10, Article 308. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-308
39.
ToomeyM.NicholsonD.CarswellA. (1995). The clinical utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 242–249. doi:10.1177/000841749506200503
40.
Uniform Data Systems for Medical Rehabilitation. (2014). Adult FIM workshop: Participant manual version 5.3 (Australia). Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo.
41.
VertesiA.DarzinsP.LoweS.McEvoyE.EdwardsM. (2000). Development of the Handicap Assessment and Resource Tool (HART). Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 120–127. doi:10.1177/000841740006700305
42.
WalkerM. F.FisherR. J.Korner-BitenskyN.McCluskeyA.CareyL. M. (2013). From what we know to what we do: Translating stroke rehabilitation research into practice. International Journal of Stroke, 8, 11–17. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00974.x
43.
World Health Organization. (2001). The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
44.
WressleE.MarcussonJ.HenrikssonC. (2002). Clinical utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: Swedish version. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 40–48. doi:10.1177/000841740206900104
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
