#OTalk – 7 Day Working
Date: 17/04/2012 Host: @lottie01
This weeks #OTalk is on the topic of “Recording your CPD” and will be hosted by Sarah Lawson (@SLawsonOT).
Here’s what Sarah had to say…
My name is Sarah Lawson @SLawsonOT, I am an Occupational Therapist and I think it’s safe to say a CPD geek. I am an MPhil/PhD student researching understanding of and engagement in Continuing Professional Development (CPD). I lecture to undergraduate Occupational Therapy students about all aspects of professional development, I carry out some clinical work in a specialist research hospital and am Regional Forum Lead for the Royal College of Occupational Therapists North West Region. Alongside all of this I work together with Deb Hearle @HearleD developing the TRAMm (Tell, Record, Activities, Monitor, measure) Model (Hearle et al. 2016) for Continuing Professional Development (www.TRAMmCPD.com). Deb is also studying for her Professional Doctorate researching the nature and process of CPD.
We have developed The TRAMm Model as a framework to encourage people to engage with CPD. CPD is a personal and subjective journey, as well as a professional and mandatory requirement. In order to be most effective, it is necessary to Tell others, Record and apply the learning from your CPD Activities, Monitor your progress and measure the impact. To facilitate this journey, we have developed tools to help you, the TRAMm Tracker can be used to record, monitor and measure your development and the TRAMm Trail enables you to record in a little more depth significant pieces of your CPD. The TRAMm Model, TRAMm Tracker and TRAMm Trail are collectively known as TRAMmCPD.
As part of our work we have examined what it means to be engaged in CPD (Hearle and Lawson 2016) and how to recognise when routine work activity becomes CPD (Hearle et al. 2015). Before beginning to record our CPD we need to consider how we become aware and recognise when we are engaged in learning which needs to be captured and recorded for our CPD.
For us in the UK keeping a ‘continuous, up-to-date and accurate record’ (HCPC 2017 p5) of CPD is an essential and mandatory requirement of our HCPC registration and yet some people are not sure what counts as CPD or how to capture the information (Qa Research 2015 p4). Recording CPD is one of the TRAMm stations, I have updated this mind map (Click here to view) which was originally included in our book (Hearle et al. 2016) which considers a myriad of ways in which you might record your CPD. You may have other elements you would add to this.
We need to engage in and record our CPD but how can we make the most from our everyday work opportunities when we are all having to manage increasing workloads and pressures, with less time, often less support from managers and the organisations we work in. Can we try to work smarter, rather than harder to ensure that we are gaining some personal satisfaction, enhancing our knowledge and skills, meeting requirements and improving the lives of our service users? How do you capture the more nebulous, anecdotal aspects of CPD? Particularly those aspects which may provide a measure of the success (or otherwise) of our CPD, such as feelings of confidence, service user/carer feedback, a box of chocolates, a text and social media interactions.
How you decide what to record? Do you use a traditional format of a paper portfolio, keep your CPD Portfolio on your personal computer, use an E-portfolio either free or pay a monthly subscription or do you do something different? Personally, I keep everything on my computer and my CPD memory stick. I scan, using an app on my phone things like notes, certificates, feedback and any other relevant items and keep them electronically rather than collecting and keeping paper copies.
A recent report commissioned by the Department of Health (Illing et al. 2017 p5) highlights that our current system of regulation operates in parallel to our employers’ annual appraisals system and makes recommendations that the two systems be joined up and feed into each other. As Occupational Therapists we work in a wide variety of settings, many have to engage in annual appraisal/professional development reviews. I have previously spent 10 years working within social care, our annual appraisal became more and more business focused, many aspects of which did not sit well with our professional ethos. Completing the appraisal paperwork felt to me like extra work, much of which was irrelevant for my CPD whilst other aspects were a repetition of my CPD just written in a different format. I was able to develop methods of recording using TRAMmCPD to manage this both within my supervisions and my annual appraisals to ensure that I was meeting my employer’s expectations whilst keeping the extra work required to a minimum.
Finally, it is worth considering how we ensure our online safety and maintain confidentiality when using cloud based or other applications. For this #OTalk I would like to explore the following:
Questions to consider:
Having reflected whilst writing this blog, it is all very well developing effective methods of recording CPD, the next important aspect is to apply all this rich and varied learning to ensure we are meeting numbers 3 and 4 of the HCPC Standards for CPD (HCPC 2017)! A possible topic for a future #OTalk?
Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) (2017) Continuing Professional Development and Your Registration. London: Health and Care Professions Council
Hearle, D., Lawson, S. & Morris, R. (2016). A Strategic Guide to Continuing Professional Development for Health and Care Professionals: The TRAMm Model. Keswick: M & K Publishing.
Hearle, D. & Lawson, S. (2016). Are You and Your Team Really Engaging in Continuing Professional Development (CPD)? College of Occupational Therapists 40th Annual Conference Harrogate.
Hearle, D., Lawson, S. & Morris, R. (2015). When Does Routine Work Activity Become Continuing Professional Development? College of Occupational Therapists 38th Annual Conference. Brighton.
Illing, J., Crampton, P., Rothwell, C., Corbett, S., Tiffin, P., Trepel, D. (2017) What is the Evidence for Assuring the Continuing Fitness to Practise of Health and Care Professions Council registrants, based on its Continuing Professional Development and Audit System? Newcastle: Newcastle University
Qa Research. (2015). Perceptions and Experiences of the HCPC Approach to Continuing Professional Development Standards and Audits: Report for the HCPC. York: Qa Research
This Tuesday Emma Hall, Mary Birken, Mandy Graham and Sophie Faulkner host #OTalk – Mental Health Occupational Therapy outcomes in clinical practice and how to measure them.
Measuring the outcomes of mental health occupational therapy interventions is vital to demonstrate changes or improvements for people using our services, and the contribution of occupational therapy in meeting the objectives of clinical services, and assuring quality.
HCPC state in their standards of proficiency for occupational therapists, that they must:
“be able to evaluate intervention plans using recognised outcome measures and revise the plans as necessary in conjunction with the service user” (HCPC, 2013)
Despite this, there are no recent published papers regarding mental health occupational therapy outcome measurement in the last five years, to guide best practice. Studies indicate that outcome measurement is not routine practice (Birken, Couch and Morley, 2018; Morley, 2014). There is debate over which outcomes should we measure in occupational therapy clinical practice in mental health. How do we ensure outcome measurement tools used are meaningful and important to those using the service and the service?
This Otalk aims to generate discussion about what outcomes of occupational therapy interventions in mental health are important to service users and the clinical services, and how we should measure these and report these.
1) Why is it important to measure outcomes within occupational therapy?
2) What are the challenges to using outcome measures within mental health practice?
3)What outcome measures are you currently using?
4) How can we ensure that outcome measurement is client centred and meaningful?
5)How can we demonstrate that occupational therapy outcomes contribute to the service objectives?
Birken, M., Couch, E. and Morley, M. (2017) Barriers and facilitators of participation in intervention research by mental health occupational therapists British Journal of Occupational Therapy 80 (9): 568-572.
Health and Care Professions Council (2013) The standards of proficiency for occupational therapists.
Morley, M. (2014) Evidencing What Works: Are Occupational Therapists Using Clinical Information Effectively? British Journal of Occupational Therapy 77 (12) 601-604.
Host: Emma Hall, @Emm_OT Mary Birken, @MaryBirken Mandy Graham @MandyGrahamOT and Sophie Faulkner @sleepOTsophie
Support on the OTalk account: Gill @gilliancrossley
18 Avg Tweets/Hour
6 Avg Tweets/Participant
This week’s chat is on the topic of Face validity and will be hosted by Dr Alison Laver-Fawcett, Associate Professor at York St John University (@alisonlaverfaw). Here is what Alison had to say…
Face validity is the extent an assessment subjectively appears to test what it is supposed to; good face validity ensures an assessment is client-centred, acceptable to the test-taker, and to the person administering it (Asher 2007).
I conducted my first face validity study around 1990-1 when I was undertaking a project to develop, standardise and evaluate the psychometric properties of an assessment, the Structured Observational Test of Function (SOTOF), as the focus for my PhD studies. At the time I struggled to find face validity reported and discussed in occupational therapy literature. A key psychometric text I was drawing on at the time by Anastasi (1988) also had noted there was a “paucity of available research on face validity, despite its probable contribution to prevalent attitudes towards tests” (p. 145). The COSMIN checklist manual (Mokkink et al., 2012: 31) stated that no standards were developed for assessing face validity because ‘face validity requires a subjective judgement’, so unlike other types of validity and reliability, there is a lack of agreed standards for face validity studies
Years later when writing about validity for a text book I found there was still a lack of face validity studies published, not just in occupational therapy but also wider allied health assessment literature. This seems counter-intuitive as occupational therapists are supposed to be client centred; so why aren’t we studying the face validity of occupational therapy assessments and outcome measures as a matter of routine? Do we really think that it doesn’t matter what our clients’ experiences of undertaking an assessment is? Or what they think about what is being assessed /measured and how the assessment is done?
In the last few years I have been undertaking work with occupational therapy students exploring the face validity of a couple of measures. For example, in the final year ‘Dissertation: Contributing to the Evidence base’ module on the Occupational Therapy Programme at York St John University, some small groups of students have been collaborating to undertake face validity studies on the Activity Card Sort – United Kingdom version (e.g. see Laver-Fawcett et al, 2016). This year students have explored the face validity of the SOTOF (2nd edition) with community living older people and a MSc by Research student is exploring the face validity of SOTOF (2nd ed) with people in an in-patient setting who have neurological conditions such as stroke.
In this chat we will explore what face validity is and how it is defined; we will debate whether it is important for occupational therapy researchers to consider face validity (both when developing and evaluating measures and when selecting outcome measures for research); and we will discuss methodology for evaluating and exploring face validity.
Whether you are an experienced researcher, a clinician or a student please join us on 2nd May for this #OTalk twitter chat and share your ideas and experience. It is never too early in your occupational therapy career to start engaging in the development and evaluation of occupational therapy assessments and outcome measures.
Suggested talking points and discussion questions to focus our chat:
Asher I.E. (2007) Occupational Therapy Assessment Tools: An annotated index. 3rd ed. Bethesda, American Occupational Therapy Association.
Laver-Fawcett A J, Brain L, Brodie C, Cardy L, Manaton L (2016) The Face Validity and Clinical Utility of the Activity Card Sort – United Kingdom (ACS-UK). British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(8) 492–504. doi:10.1177/0308022616629167. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0308022616629167 (accessed 25th June 2018).
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM and de Vet HCW (2012) COSMIN checklist manual. Available at: http://www.cosmin.nl/images/upload/files/COSMIN%20checklist%20manual%20v9.pdf (accessed 25 June 2018).
Chat host : Dr Alison Laver-Fawcett @alisonlaverfaw
On OTalk account for support: Dr Jenny Preston @preston_jenny
This weeks #Otalk is on the topic of “Participation” and will be hosted by Tori Wolfendale (@Tori_Doll).
Tori Wolfendale is a Specialist Occupational Therapist working within an intensive rehabilitation mental health environment. At present, she is involved as the Research Director for the VdT Model of Creative Ability Foundation UK and is also a member of @MOT1ON_Research – she has a keen interest in contributing to the evidence base for Occupational Therapy interventions, focusing predominantly on the implementation of the VdT Model of Creative Ability within adult mental health services.
What is the Mental Health Occupational Therapy Interventions and Outcomes Network (MOTION)?
@MOT1ON_Research was set up by Dr. Mary Birken in April 2017 to bring together Occupational Therapists interested in adult mental health intervention effectiveness research in the UK. This was as a result of the review of “Recovering Ordinary Lives: the strategy for occupational therapy in mental health services 2007 to 2017”, (College of Occupational Therapists, 2006) whereby it was identified that a key concern for Occupational Therapists working in mental health is the lack of quantitative evidence of effectiveness of sufficient rigour to be included in clinical guidelines, such as those produced by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (Smyth, 2014). Commissioners also identified that demonstrating evidence of effectiveness and cost effectiveness is a priority for Occupational Therapy in mental health. To respond to the need to carry out rigorous research to test the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Occupational Therapy in mental health, MOTION was developed. The aim of MOTION is to bring together Occupational Therapists interested in researching this topic to tackle the common barriers to carrying out effectiveness research in this area, for example, lack of agreement on outcomes and outcome measurement, and Occupational Therapists working generically in community mental health services.
MOTION has recognised that the concept of ‘participation’ is increasingly becoming an important outcome for assessment in many fields, including development, disability and policy implementation. However, selecting specific instruments to measure participation has been a significant problem due to overlapping conceptual definitions and use of different theories. Furthermore, following the first meeting of the MOTION working groups, which focuses on participation as an outcome measure and measures of participation. The aim of this particular working group is to explore the literature on participation and outcome measures within adult mental health services. As a result, in order to obtain an understanding of what the term ‘participation’ means within mental health services from an occupational therapy perspective, MOTION decided to explore this topic within the #OTalk forum.
For more information about MOTION, please visit:
How is participation recognised within existing literature?
Occupational Therapy is a client-centred health profession concerned with promoting health and wellbeing through occupation. The primary goal of Occupational Therapy is to enable people to participate in the activities of everyday life. Occupational Therapists achieve this outcome by working with people and communities to enhance their ability to engage in the occupations they want to, need to, or are expected to do, or by modifying the occupation or the environment to better support their occupational engagement (WFOT, 2012).
Rice (2011) states that Occupational Therapy is concerned with the meaning that individuals’ place on activities and occupations that are carried out in their daily routines. Participation in these activities is influenced by an individual’s motivation, experience, abilities and limitations. Occupational Therapists are therefore trained to evaluate a person’s abilities and limitations in a variety of life spheres in order to establish a baseline performance which is used to plan for treatment and is then evaluated using a specific outcome measure – within the current service that Tori is working in, the Activity Participation Outcome Measure (APOM) is used to measure the outcome of specific domains, including; processing skills, communication and social interactions skills, life skills, role performance, balanced life style, motivation, self-esteem and affect.
Clinically, a person’s role participation becomes the focus of the Occupational Therapist when disability-related limitations affect a person’s capacity to participate in desired and meaningful roles. Occupational Therapists aim to assure that persons with a disability have the motivation, opportunity, and capacity to overcome disability-related limitations and participate in social life. The International Classification of Health, Disability and Function (ICF) defines participation as “involvement in life situations” different than it defines activities which are “the execution of a task or action by an individual”. Furthermore, the ICF states that participation naturally occurs when clients are actively involved in carrying out occupations or daily life activities they find purposeful and meaningful. More specific outcomes of Occupational Therapy interventions are multidimensional and support the end result of participation. Despite the difference in definition, the ICF places both activities and participation together within existing literature – this ambiguity has resulted in an entire thread of literature as rehabilitation researches seek to identify ways to approach the measurement of participation.
Questions to consider within the #OTalk chat:
Q1: What does the term ‘participation’ mean to you/your service users?
Q2) Is participation an important measure within mental health services, if so how?
Q3) Do you consider occupational participation throughout the occupational therapy process, if so how?
Q4) How does the physical, social, cultural environment impact on participation within inpatient and community mental health services?
Q5) How do mental health services define ‘participation’ in meaningful occupation?
College of Occupational Therapists. (2006), Recovering Ordinary Lives –the strategy for occupational therapy in mental health services 2007-2017. London: COT.
Rice, C., M. (2011). The development of an assessment protocol for activity participation in those suffering from mental illness The development of an assessment protocol for activity participation in those suffering from mental illness.
Smyth, G. (2014), “Recovering Ordinary Lives: the success, challenges and future”, Occupational Therapy News, Vol. 22, No. 9, pp. 22-23.
World Federation of Occupational Therapists. (2012). Definition of Occupational Therapy. Available: http://www.wfot.org/AboutUs/AboutOccupationalTherapy/DefinitionofOccupationalTherapy.aspx. Last accessed 15th January 2018.
299 Avg Tweets/Hour
7 Avg Tweets/Participant
Data for #OTalk can be up to 15 minutes delayed