Use of the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for Occupational Therapy (AusTOMs-OT) in an early supported discharge programme for stroke patients in Singapore

2015 ◽  
Vol 78 (9) ◽  
pp. 570-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenzhen Chen ◽  
Jia Yen Eng
2005 ◽  
Vol 68 (8) ◽  
pp. 354-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn A Unsworth

Although there is increasing demand for greater accountability from occupational therapists for the outcomes of their practice, there are few quick, simple and psychometrically sound tools available to measure these outcomes. This paper reports on the first data collection exercise using a new outcome measure, the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for Occupational Therapy (AusTOMs-OT). The aims of this paper are to present the scales, describe the data set and examine whether the scales are sufficiently sensitive to detect change over time in client status. Data were collected with 466 clients at 12 metropolitan and rural health care facilities using the 12 AusTOM-OT scales, which rate the client in relation to the four domains of Impairment, Activity limitation, Participation restriction and Distress/wellbeing. The findings indicated that the most frequently used scales were Self-care, Upper limb use, Transfers and Functional walking and mobility, and that all scales were successful in demonstrating statistically significant client change over time. The AusTOMs-OT can be used to document client outcomes in relation to four important practice domains and thus be of value in research and quality assurance activities seeking to provide evidence that occupational therapy does make a difference to the lives of clients.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Róisín Kearns ◽  
Nancy Salmon ◽  
Mairead Cahill ◽  
Eithne Egan

Purpose No occupational therapy outcome measures have been designed specifically for recovery-orientated services.This paper aims to identify occupational therapy outcome measures relevant to mental health practice and assess them against recovery principles adopted by Irish Mental Health Services. Design/methodology/approach A narrative review methodology was used to appraise outcome measures against CHIME recovery principles. Findings A systematic search across 13 databases identified eight well-established outcome measures commonly used within occupational therapy mental health literature. The included outcome measures were appraised using a recovery alignment tool. Practical implications All outcome measures connected to some recovery processes. Those using semi-structured interview formats and notably the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) had the strongest alignment to recovery processes. Originality/value This is the first known review which provides some validation that the included outcome measures support recovery processes, yet the measures rely heavily on therapist’s skills for processes to be facilitated. It recommends that ways to better support the process of partnership in occupational therapy mental health outcome measures be explored and further research be undertaken.


2017 ◽  
Vol 80 (10) ◽  
pp. 631-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn A Unsworth

Statement of context Occupational therapists working with clients who have neurological impairments routinely collect outcomes data. However, data cannot inform practice unless it is routinely reviewed. The aim of this paper was to show how outcomes data collected on the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures – Occupational Therapy scale were analysed and interpreted. Although the example pertains to clients with neurological problems, the approach can be applied to all areas of practice. Critical reflection on practice When outcomes data are routinely analysed and findings reviewed, occupational therapists have an increased understanding of practice strengths and limitations. Implications for practice Incorporating analysis and interpretation of outcomes data for clients with neurological problems into practice contributes evidence to support therapy and ensures clinicians retain control of their data.


2006 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Scott ◽  
Carolyn A. Unsworth ◽  
Janet Fricke ◽  
Nicholas Taylor

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document