Generic and Specialist Occupational Therapy Casework in Community Mental Health Teams

• Autores: Priscilla A. Harries, Ken Gilhooly
• Localización: British journal of occupational therapy, ISSN 0308-0226, Vol. 66, Nº. 3 (March), 2003, págs. 101-109
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • The aim of this research was to conduct a cluster analysis on data from 40 community mental health occupational therapists to determine if subgroups of therapists had differing referral prioritisation policies. A Ward's cluster analysis showed four clusters to be present.

    These four subgroups of occupational therapists were found to differ according to several factors: the percentage of role dedicated to specialist occupational therapy or generic work, satisfaction with the balance in these roles, the number of hours worked, the number of professionally trained team members and the presence of referral prioritisation policies. The subgroups were named the aspiring specialists, the satisfied specialists, the satisfied genericists and the chameleons (those not set in applying a consistent or specific policy).

    The policies that led to mainly generic working gave greatest importance to clients who were potentially violent or at risk of suicide. The policies that led to more of an occupational therapy role gave particular importance to the reason for referral and the client's diagnosis.

    The College of Occupational Therapists has recommended that the majority of casework should be focused on specialist occupational therapy interventions (Craik et al 1998): most of the participants in this study were not meeting this recommendation. Although some aspired to being more specialist, the pressures to work generically may have been affecting referral policies