A scoping review was conducted to describe how mindfulness is used in physical rehabilitation, identify implications for occupational therapy practice, and guide future research on clinical mindfulness interventions. A systematic search of four literature databases produced 1,524 original abstracts, of which 16 articles were included. Although only 3 Level I or II studies were identified, the literature included suggests that mindfulness interventions are helpful for patients with musculoskeletal and chronic pain disorders and demonstrate trends toward outcome improvements for patients with neurocognitive and neuromotor disorders. Only 2 studies included an occupational therapist as the primary mindfulness provider, but all mindfulness interventions in the selected studies fit within the occupational therapy scope of practice according to the American Occupational Therapy Association’s Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process. Higher-level research is needed to evaluate the effects of mindfulness interventions in physical rehabilitation and to determine best practices for the use of mindfulness by occupational therapy practitioners.

OBJECTIVE. Although the practice of occupational therapy is described in textbooks, research, and professional standards, a tool for outcomes research is needed. METHOD. The Occupational Therapy Practice Checklist (OTPC), based on the Model of Occupational Performance (Pedretti, 1996), includes domains of adjunctive, enabling, purposeful, and occupational performance. Practices are also identified by phase of therapy (early, middle, late). The OTPC was piloted with 40 adults in an outpatient physical rehabilitation center. RESULTS. The Kuder Richardson 20 coefficient of internal consistency was .91. Practices on the OTPC discriminated between clients with and without neurological disorders. CONCLUSION. The OTPC has potential for yielding knowledge about occupational therapy practice. Results of the pilot show that occupational therapy practice was not linear, as theorized, but rather a complex integration of techniques.

OBJECTIVES. The purpose of this survey study was to investigate occupational therapy practice errors in physical rehabilitation and geriatric practice settings. METHOD. Two hundred and forty-five (245) out of 994 surveyed occupational therapists who have practiced or currently practice in physical rehabilitation or geriatrics settings responded to a self-developed questionnaire. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to describe practice errors as to the types, causes, impact on, and responses of occupational therapists and work sites. Inferential statistical analysis was used to explore the relationships among different variables of interest including: the effect of the number of years of practice experience on the perceived impact of making errors on practice; the relationship between disclosure or nondisclosure of errors; and the types of coping strategies used by occupational therapists and work site administrators’ responses to errors. RESULTS. The vast majority of practice errors occurred during the intervention phase of the occupational therapy process. Misjudgment, lack of preparation, and lack of experience were reported as the top three causes of practice errors. Various coping strategies—such as compensating for the errors by voluntarily devoting additional time for care of the patient, making and following a corrective plan, concentrating on the next step, or not letting errors interfere with daily work—were used by the occupational therapists when errors occurred. The types of coping strategies and work site responses appeared to be associated with the disclosure or nondisclosure of errors. CONCLUSION. Errors occur in occupational therapy practice. Making errors has considerable impact on occupational therapists as well as their future practice. However, disclosure of errors can often lead to positive outcomes.

OBJECTIVE. Errors occur in all health care professions. Practice errors, however, have not been systematically examined in occupational therapy. The purpose of this study was to examine occupational therapists’ responses to practice errors in physical rehabilitation settings. METHOD. A qualitative focus group research method was used in this study and a total of 35 occupational therapists from four different states who had practice experience in physical rehabilitation settings participated in four focus groups. Focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by two investigators of the study. Qualitative software program, NUD*IST Vivo was used to aid the data analysis process. RESULTS. Five major themes were generated from the data regarding practice errors, which included (1) Concept of practice error: It is against our standards; (2) Perceived causes of practice error: Not just an individual matter; (3) Emotional responses: I felt horrible; (4) Impact on practice: Doing things differently; and (5) Management of practice error: Being honest and taking initiative. Occupational therapists perceived practice error from a broad perspective and identified physical and psychosocial issues as practice error. CONCLUSION. Most practice errors described by participants appeared to be preventable. Despite the tremendous emotional distress in reaction to making an error, participants valued the learning in the experience and made constructive practice changes. Findings of the study have implications for current educational training programs and practice such as the development of clinical reasoning related to patient safety and assertiveness training for hierarchical situations.

Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine whether multivariate measurement at the initiation of students’ training in occupational therapy could predict clinical performance in Level II fieldwork. Method. Forty-five students in their first semester were videotaped in pairs and completed personality and emotional communication measures related to the potential for working well with others. Two years later, the students’ clinical performance was rated by Level II fieldwork supervisors. Results. In the physical rehabilitation fieldwork setting, students who were conventional and quietly concerned were rated higher than students who were unconventional, talkative, and less other-centered. In the pediatric rehabilitation setting, students who were autonomous and nonverbally perceptive were rated higher than students who were interdependent and less perceptive. In the psychiatric rehabilitation setting, students who were emotionally reactive to facial but not body cues of emotion were rated higher than students who had low emotional reactivity and were less perceptive to facial but not body cues. Conclusion. The varying institutional cultures, types of patients, and roles of occupational therapy across fieldwork settings may require different sets of attributes for working well with others. Educators and supervisors should be aware of these possible differences when fashioning Level I fieldwork experiences.

Objectives. Recent literature has emphasized collaborative goal setting between therapists and clients and has sought to increase therapists’ awareness of treating in cross-cultural settings. How occupational therapists verbally evaluate clients with limited English proficiency (LEP) is important to these topics and underdeveloped in the literature. Method. Seventy-four occupational therapists working with adult clients with LEP in physical rehabilitation settings in large U.S. metropolitan areas were surveyed to discover the time taken, methods used, and themes surrounding verbal evaluation, including use of translators and respondents’ linguistic abilities. A follow-up telephone interview of 12 survey respondents clarified these discoveries. Results. Respondents reported taking 11.5 min more to verbally evaluate clients with LEP than for English-speaking clients and reported understanding the treatment needs of clients’ with LEP after verbal evaluation less well. Respondents with higher abilities in second languages reported better understanding of clients’ needs than monolingual respondents. Conclusion. Methods for cross-lingual verbal evaluation need to be identified so that therapists can collaborate with clients with LEP in planning culturally sensitive treatment.