Role of Occupational Therapy in Pain Management

This new position statement from the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) describes occupational therapy’s role in pain management. AOTA asserts that occupational therapy practitioners are distinctly prepared to work independently and to contribute to interprofessional teams in the treatment of pain. Practitioners strive to ensure active engagement in meaningful occupations for clients at risk for and affected by pain.

Role of Occupational Therapy in Pain Management

The American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) asserts that occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants, collectively referred to as occupational therapy practitioners (AOTA, 2020b), are distinctly prepared to work independently and to contribute to interprofessional teams in the treatment of pain. Occupational therapy practitioners work to ensure active engagement in meaningful occupations for “persons, groups, or populations (i.e., the client)” (AOTA, 2020b, p. 1) at risk for and affected by pain.

A National Survey of Palliative Care Team Compositions

Purpose: It is unclear how well palliative care teams are staffed at US cancer centers. Our primary objective was to compare the composition of palliative care teams between National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and non-NCI-designated cancer centers in 2018. We also assessed changes in team composition between 2009 and 2018. Methods: This national survey examined the team composition in palliative care programs at all 61 NCI-designated cancer centers and in a random sample of 60 of 1252 non-NCI-designated cancer centers in 2018. Responses were compared to those from our 2009 survey. The primary outcome was the presence of an interprofessional team defined as a palliative care physician, nurse, and psychosocial member. Secondary outcomes were the size and number of individual disciplines. Results: In 2018, 52/61 (85%) of NCI-designated and 27/38 (71%) non-NCI-designated cancer centers in the primary outcome comparison responded to the survey. NCI-designated cancer centers were more likely to have interprofessional teams than non-NCI-designated cancer centers (92% vs 67%; P = .009). Non-NCI-designated cancer centers were more likely to have nurse-led teams (14.8% vs 0.0%; P = .01). The median number of disciplines did not differ between groups (NCI, 6.0; non-NCI, 5.0; P = .08). Between 2009 and 2018, NCI-designated and non-NCI-designated cancer centers saw increased proportions of centers with interprofessional teams (NCI, 64.9% vs 92.0%, P < .001; non-NCI, 40.0% vs 66.7%; P = .047). Conclusion: NCI-designated cancer centers were more likely to report having an interprofessional palliative care team than non-NCI-designated cancer centers. Growth has been limited over the past decade, particularly at non-NCI-designated cancer centers.

Digital health needs for implementing high-quality primary care: recommendations from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

A National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee developed a plan to implement high-quality primary care. One of the 5 key objectives was designing information technology that serves the patient, family, and interprofessional care team. The committee defined high-quality primary care as the provision of whole person, integrated, accessible, and equitable healthcare by interprofessional teams who are accountable for addressing most of an individual’s health across settings and through sustained relationships. The committee recommended 2 essential actions for digital health. The first action is developing the next phase of digital health certification standards that support relationship-based, continuous, person-centered care; simplify user experience; ensure equitable access; and hold vendors accountable. Second, the committee recommended adopting a comprehensive aggregate patient data system usable by any certified digital health tool. This article reviews primary care’s digital health needs and describes successful digital health for primary care.

Comparing primary care Interprofessional and non-interprofessional teams on access to care and health services utilization in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective cohort study

Background Many countries, including Canada, have introduced primary care reforms to improve health system functioning and value. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between receiving care from interprofessional primary care teams and after-hours access to care, patient-reported walk-in clinic visits and emergency department use. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study linking population-based administrative databases to Ontario’s Health Care Experience Survey (HCES) between 2012 and 2018. We adjusted for physician group characteristics as well as individual physician and patient characteristics while assessing the relationship between receiving care from interprofessional teams and the outcomes of interest. Results As of March 31st, 2015, there were 465 physician groups with HCES respondents of which 177 (38.0%) were interprofessional teams and 288 (62.0%) were non-interprofessional teams in the same blended capitation reimbursement model. In this period, there were 4518 physicians with HCES respondents, of whom 2131 (47.2%) were in interprofessional teams and 2387 (52.8%) were in non-interprofessional teams. There were 10,102 HCES respondents included in this study, of whom 42.4% were in interprofessional teams and 42.3% were in non-interprofessional teams. After adjustment, we found that being in an interprofessional team was associated with an increase in the odds of patients reporting same/next day access to care by 12.0% (OR = 1.12 CI = 1.00 to 1.24 p-value 0.0436) and a decrease in the odds of patients reporting walk-in clinic use by 16% (OR = 0.84 CI = 0.75 to 0.94 p-value 0.0019). After adjustment, there were no significant differences in patient-reported after-hours access to care and emergency department use. Conclusions Ontario has invested heavily in interprofessional primary care teams. As compared to patients in non-interprofessional teams, patients in interprofessional teams self-reported more timely access to care and less walk-in clinic use but no significant difference in self-reported access to after-hours care or in emergency department use. For jurisdictions aiming to expand physician voluntary participation in interprofessional teams, our study results inform expectations around access to care and health services utilization.

Clinical Scholars: Effective Approaches to Leadership Development

The Clinical Scholars (CS) National Leadership Institute (CSNLI) equips interprofessional teams of health care professionals through equity-centered leadership training, preparing them to be change leaders working to advance health equity in communities across the US and its territories. At the time of this writing, four cohorts consisting of 131 Fellows from 14 different disciplines, participating in 36 different teams of two to five members are working on “Wicked Problem Impact Projects”, an implementation science-based approach to action learning projects. This chapter reports on the design of the 3-year CS experience, the onsite and distance-based training support, and the subsequent learning responses of 98 participants, 30 of whom had completed the 3-year training (Cohort 1), 34 of whom had completed 2-years of the training (Cohort 2), and 34 who had completed 1-year of the training (Cohort 3). The training program is guided by 25 competencies that weave leadership and equity throughout, which are divided into four families: Personal, Interpersonal, Organizational, and Community & Systems. Learning outcomes indicated that Fellows are highly satisfied, with all participants rating their experience at 6.10-6.77 on a 7-point scale across all sessions, all years. Retrospective pre-and post-tests assessed learning gains on the competencies, indicating statistically significant changes from baseline to midpoint in participant knowledge, attitude, use, and self-efficacy in each of the 25 competencies and large and significant gains by competency family. The Clinical Scholars Program presents an in-depth, longitudinal, state-of-the-art approach to promoting the cultivation and development of a large and sophisticated set of skills that intentionally integrate leadership competencies with a focus on health equity. Taken together, these outcomes show how a logical and structured process, using widely available tools, can contribute to both learning and implementation of skills that lead to real world impacts in communities. Given the results reported at the close of their Clinical Scholars experience, the data suggest that investing in robust, intensive leadership development of interprofessional teams is a smart decision for impacting the culture of health in communities nationwide.