Occupational Therapy Assessment Practice Patterns for Core Domains in Adult Populations

Abstract

Practitioners need to demonstrate the value of occupational therapy services in achieving effective patient outcomes. To intervene effectively, we must have adequate assessment practices. This study examines variation in occupational therapy assessment practices by facility type, areas addressed, and types of instruments. The study characterizes commonly and frequently used assessment practices in core occupational domains and identifies potential practice gaps related to assessment. A cross-sectional online survey across six domains central to adult occupational therapy practice (activities of daily living [ADL], instrumental activities of daily living [IADL], fear of falling, functional cognition, psychosocial, and vision) was administered to practitioners in various settings. Surveys were obtained from 1,198 respondent. Survey responses identified differences in domains being assessed and assessment methods used by occupational therapy practitioners across hospital inpatient post-acute care facilities and community settings. There is variability in the methods used to assess domains critical to occupational therapy practice and the degree to which occupational therapists evaluate domains in practice settings.

Plain Language Summary

Occupational Therapy Assessment Practice Patterns

Occupational therapists need to assess how their services help patients get better. The aims of this study were to identify settings that assess patients, what tools they use, how they identify the most common assessment practices in occupational therapy, and identification of differences in current assessment practices. This study used an online survey that was given to therapists in various settings, covering six key areas: daily living activities, instrumental daily living activities, fear of falling, functional thinking, psychosocial aspects, and vision. The results included 1,198 practitioners who completed the survey. Differences were seen in areas assessed including how they were evaluated in hospitals, inpatient post-acute care facilities, and community settings. The limitations included using a non-standardized survey, addressed limited areas of occupational therapy practice and reported results based on the degree to which practitioners always assessed an area of functioning and the method used. The conclusions found that there was variability in how occupational therapy practitioners assess important areas and how they do it in different practice settings.