#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 talk will be hosted by Dr Karen Bell, R&D Manager, NHS Ayrshire and Arran @RDAyrshire and Jenny Preston @preston_jenny will support on the #OTalk account.
Innovation – Do Occupational Therapists have a role to play?
Health care innovation is defined by NHS Chief Executives as
“An idea, service or product new to the NHS or applied in a way that is new to the NHS which significantly improves the quality of health and care wherever it is applied”.1
Innovation is part of a complex landscape of drivers to improve the care that health and social care providers deliver. More familiar drivers are quality improvement programmes, NICE guidelines, research and development projects. In the last few years innovation has become a buzz word in the NHS with a number of large scale initiatives such as the Industrial Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research in Digital Diagnostics (ICAIRD) in Scotland. Artificial intelligence to streamline review processes and aid diagnostics along with Precision Medicine are increasingly touted as being the future game changers for the health service.
However the NHS still faces huge challenges – a shrinking, more elderly workforce, an increasingly frail population with complex multi-morbidities and a drive to deliver care in a home or community environment and the questions remains what role if any can innovation play in tackling these issues and how can staff be involved given the service pressures that they face?
NHS England includes Innovation within Chapter 3 of their NHS Long Term Plan2 with the following commitments:
The Catalyst for Health and Social Care Innovation in Scotland3 is a collaboration between NHS Boards, Integrated Joint Boards and Innovators to develop solutions for service delivery problems. The focus is on identifying priorities that are important, doable, of value and benefit and that there is an opportunity to develop and deliver solutions that can be adopted.
Occupational therapists are no strangers to innovation and routinely demonstrate innovative approaches to practice. We have considerable experience in the use of technology enabled innovations both in the delivery of care and through environmental adaptation and modification. Yet at times we don’t recognise our contribution to innovation or indeed acknowledge that our work is innovative.
This #OTalk will facilitate a discussion about what innovation means to occupational therapy research and practice. In advance of the #OTalk you may wish to consider the following:
What does Innovation mean to you?
How do you feel about Innovation?
What are the limiting factors in developing an innovative workforce?
Do you have time to be innovative?
How likely is your service/practice to adopt innovation?
Online transcript: OTalk Transcript from www.symplur.com/healthcare-hashtags
PDF of transcript: #OTalk 5 Nov 2019
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