Research Article  |   February 2015
Clinical Reasoning Guideline for Home Modification Interventions
Susan L. Stark; Emily Somerville; Marian Keglovits; Aliza Smason; Kelsey Bigham
Author Affiliations
  • Susan L. Stark, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA, is an Assistant Professor of Occupational Therapy, Neurology and Social Work, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; starks@wusm.wustl.edu
  • Emily Somerville, MSOT, OTR/L, is Occupational Therapist, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
  • Marian Keglovits, OTD, MSCI, OTR/L, is Occupational Therapist, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
  • Aliza Smason, OTD, OTR/L, is Occupational Therapist, Ministry of Education, Jerusalem, Israel
  • Kelsey Bigham, MSOT, OTRl/L, is Occupational Therapist, Jones Therapy Services, Nashville, TN
Article Information
Home Accessibility/Environmental Modification / Rehabilitation, Disability, and Participation
Research Article   |   February 2015
Clinical Reasoning Guideline for Home Modification Interventions
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, February 2015, Vol. 69, 6902290030p1-6902290030p8. doi:10.5014/ajot.2015.014266
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, February 2015, Vol. 69, 6902290030p1-6902290030p8. doi:10.5014/ajot.2015.014266
Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a clinical reasoning tool to describe an occupational therapist’s clinical reasoning process while delivering home modification interventions.

METHOD. We used a two-phase, mixed-methods approach. In Phase 1, we developed a personal factors guideline to support clinical reasoning in home modification interventions based on in-depth interviews, a focus group, and field observations of 6 home modification experts. In Phase 2, the guideline was validated by a second group of 6 home modification experts.

RESULTS. During analysis, 16 personal and environmental factors with a corresponding set of conditions and strategies for each factor emerged to form a clinical reasoning guideline, which was validated by a second group of experts.

CONCLUSION. Unpacking the “black box” of the clinical reasoning process has yielded a useful clinical reasoning tool that will allow occupational therapists to deliver complex interventions with fidelity.