Comparison of Problem-Based Learning Curricula in Two Occupational Therapy Programmes

1997 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Brasic Royeen ◽  
Penny Salvatori

There is increasing interest in the use of problem-based learning (PBL) approaches in the education of health professionals. This paper compares the PBL occupational therapy programmes at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario and Shenandoah University in Winchester, Virginia. The first section of the paper offers some general comments about problem-based learning; the second section presents an overview of key components of the occupational therapy programmes at McMaster University and Shenandoah University. A description of the similarities and differences between the programmes is provided, and critical issues that have emerged in the process of implementing these programmes are discussed.

1997 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 203-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Hay

This paper reports an investigation of the test-retest reliability of student evaluations of tutors in a Problem-Based Learning curricula at McMaster University. Thirty first-year Occupational Therapy students in five tutorial groups completed a 19 item tutor evaluation scale. To examine test-retest reliability they completed the scale on two occasions separated by a three day interval. Fourteen items had test-retest generalizability coefficients greater than .70. Student evaluations appear to have promising reliability. Suggestions for the improvement of reliability include familiarization with the form and ensuring that administration occurred separately from formal student evaluations.


2001 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 561-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Tremblay ◽  
Joyce Tryssenaar ◽  
Bonny Jung

Author(s):  
Sarah Ryan ◽  
Jo Adams ◽  
Anne O’Brien ◽  
Anita Williams

Multidisciplinary treatment is required to optimize the physical, psychological, and social function of people living with a long-term musculoskeletal condition. Multidisciplinary treatment is usually provided by a team which includes doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals. Each member of the team provides their own unique contribution with the shared goal of suppressing the activity and impact of the condition while educating and supporting people to manage their own symptoms effectively. This chapter focuses on treatment from the perspective of four disciplines: nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and podiatry.


2008 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherlyn Briller ◽  
Allison Kabel

For the past five decades, anthropologists have taught health practitioners about how our discipline studies and addresses health-related issues. Important curricular reforms in the education of health professionals in the late 1960's and early 1970's greatly expanded such teaching roles for social scientists (Chrisman and Johnson, 1996). While anthropological teaching of certain types of health practitioners such as physicians and nurses are well-known, anthropologists' growing roles in teaching other kinds of practitioners are also being documented today. For example, the burgeoning intellectual, collaborative teaching and practice relationships between anthropology, occupational therapy and occupational science have been discussed by Frank (2007) and Frank & Zemke (2005).


Author(s):  
Sarah Ryan ◽  
Jo Adams ◽  
Anne O’Brien ◽  
Anita Williams

Multidisciplinary treatment is required to optimize the physical, psychological, and social function of people living with a long-term musculoskeletal condition. Multidisciplinary treatment is usually provided by a team which includes doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals. Each member of the team provides their own unique contribution with the shared goal of suppressing the activity and impact of the condition while educating and supporting people to manage their own symptoms effectively. This chapter focuses on treatment from the perspective of four disciplines: nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and podiatry.


2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hashem S. Abu Tariah ◽  
Khawlah Abulfeilat ◽  
Amjad Khawaldeh

2018 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 13-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ted Brown ◽  
Helen Bourke-Taylor ◽  
Stephen Isbel ◽  
Louise Gustafsson ◽  
Carol McKinstry ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 353
Author(s):  
Claudette S. Satchell ◽  
Merrilyn Walton ◽  
Patrick J. Kelly ◽  
Elizabeth M. Chiarella ◽  
Suzanne M. Pierce ◽  
...  

In 2005, the Australian Productivity Commission made a recommendation that a national health registration regimen and a consolidated national accreditation regimen be established. On 1 July 2010, the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS) for health practitioners came into effect and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) became the single national oversight agency for health professional regulation. It is governed by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act (the National Law). While all states and territories joined NRAS for registration and accreditation, NSW did not join the scheme for the handling of complaints, but retained its existing co-regulatory complaint-handling system. All other states and territories joined the national notification (complaints) scheme prescribed in the National Law. Because the introduction of NRAS brings with it new processes and governance around the management of complaints that apply to all regulated health professionals in all states and territories except NSW, where complaints management remains largely unchanged, there is a need for comparative analysis of these differing national and NSW approaches to the management of complaints/notifications about health professionals, not only to allow transparency for consumers, but also to assess consistency of decision making around complaints/notifications across jurisdictions. This paper describes the similarities and differences for complaints/notifications handling between the NRAS and NSW schemes and briefly discusses subsequent and potential changes in other jurisdictions.


1994 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Lloyd-Smith

The present governmental reforms of the National Health Service are the most far-reaching to date and have fundamental implications for health professionals. The focus of this article is to raise some of these issues in relation to occupational therapy. The introduction of trusts, the purchaser/provider split and the internal market are some of the mechanisms by which the government hoped to tackle the funding crisis of the late 1980s. These reforms have been operating since 1991, but little has been published on the impact of the self-governing trust movement on occupational therapy. Some observations on and an evaluation of these reforms are offered. It is hoped that the article will stimulate discussion within the profession about the role of trusts and their relationship to the delivery and development of an occupational therapy service.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document