Clinical Reasoning in Occupational Therapy Practice: A Scoping Review of Qualitative and Conceptual Peer-Reviewed Literature.

IMPORTANCE: The occupational therapy clinical reasoning literature includes a large proportion of peer-reviewed qualitative and conceptual articles. Although these articles can contribute to the understanding of how clinical reasoning has been conceptualized in occupational therapy, they have not yet received in-depth analytic attention. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review. OBJECTIVE: To examine how qualitative and conceptual literature has addressed clinical reasoning in occupational therapy. DATA SOURCES: Database searches were conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Embase, and MEDLINE. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA COLLECTION: Included articles were published between 2010 and 2019, were peer reviewed, addressed clinical reasoning in occupational therapy, were qualitative or conceptual articles, focused on practitioners, and were in English. Twenty-six articles met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted according to relevant categories and were analyzed numerically and thematically. FINDINGS: Four themes were identified: clinical reasoning processes, factors influencing clinical reasoning, new models or frameworks to guide clinical reasoning, and emergent perspectives on clinical reasoning. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This review advances knowledge about how clinical reasoning has been conceptualized in occupational therapy and has been applied in a range of practice contexts. The review highlights discussions about types of reasoning, the dynamic and iterative nature of reasoning, contextual dimensions of reasoning, client-centered and occupation-based approaches, new frameworks and models, and emergent and innovative perspectives on clinical reasoning in occupational therapy. What This Article Adds: This scoping review represents an important contribution to knowledge about how clinical reasoning has been conceptualized in occupational therapy by mapping key themes and illuminating scholarly conversations in the qualitative and conceptual clinical reasoning literature.

Getting airtime: Exploring how patients shape the stories they tell health practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: Effective communication during health encounters is known to decrease patient complaints, increase patient adherence and optimise health outcomes. While the aim of patient-centred care is to find common ground, health practitioners tend to drive the encounter, often interrupting patients within the first minute of the clinical conversation. Optimal care for people with chronic illnesses requires individuals to interact with health practitioners regarding their health concerns, but given these constraints, we know little about how patients strategise conversations with their care providers. This understanding may further our efforts to educate health practitioners and trainees to learn and practice patient-centred care. METHODS: A constructivist grounded theory approach with iterative data collection and analysis was used to explore the processes patients use to present and shape their stories for interactions with health practitioners. Twenty-one patients (n = 16 female; 5 male) representing a variety of chronic illnesses participated in semi-structured interviews. Using the constant comparative method of analysis, salient themes were ascertained. RESULTS: Patients engage in extensive strategic preparations for productive health encounters. From the data, we identified four related elements comprising patients' process of planning, preparing, and strategising for health encounters: deciding to go, organising to get airtime, rehearsing a game plan, and anticipating external forces. By focusing on the extensive preparatory work patients engage in, our study expands the dimensions of how we understand illness-related work. Assembling personal health information, gathering disease information and achieving equanimity represent the dimensions of this 'health interaction work'. CONCLUSION: The work patients engage in for health encounters is noteworthy yet often invisible. And work that is unseen may also be undervalued. Acknowledging, illuminating and valuing patients' preparatory work for health encounters add to how we understand patient-centred care, and this offers new targets for us to effectively teach and deliver it.

Cross-sector Service Provision in Health and Social Care: An Umbrella Review.

INTRODUCTION: Meeting the complex health needs of people often requires interaction among numerous different sectors. No one service can adequately respond to the diverse care needs of consumers. Providers working more effectively together is frequently touted as the solution. Cross-sector service provision is defined as independent, yet interconnected sectors working together to better meet the needs of consumers and improve the quality and effectiveness of service provision. Cross-sector service provision is expected, yet much remains unknown about how it is conceptualised or its impact on health status. This umbrella review aims to clarify the critical attributes that shape cross-sector service provision by presenting the current state of the literature and building on the findings of the 2004 review by Sloper. METHODS: Literature related to cross-sector service provision is immense, which poses a challenge for decision makers wishing to make evidence-informed decisions. An umbrella review was conducted to articulate the overall state of cross-sector service provision literature and examine the evidence to allow for the discovery of consistencies and discrepancies across the published knowledge base. FINDINGS: Sixteen reviews met the inclusion criteria. Seven themes emerged: Focusing on the consumer, developing a shared vision of care, leadership involvement, service provision across the boundaries, adequately resourcing the arrangement, developing novel arrangements or aligning with existing relationships, and strengthening connections between sectors. Future research from a cross-organisational, rather than individual provider, perspective is needed to better understand what shapes cross-sector service provision at the boundaries. CONCLUSION: Findings aligned closely with the work done by Sloper and raise red flags related to reinventing what is already known. Future researchers should look to explore novel areas rather than looking into areas that have been explored at length. Evaluations of out-comes related to cross-sector service provision are still needed before any claims about effectiveness can be made.