PTOTSLPSystematic ReviewThe British journal of occupational therapy2022

What are the common areas of risk and their characteristics found in intermediate care from an occupational therapy perspective? A scoping review.

Craig Newman, Phillip Whitehead, Mary Thomson

PMID 40336628

WHAT IT FOUND

Falls, discharge planning, and practice errors were the most common risk areas for occupational therapists in intermediate care.

The review found no evidence on how therapists explicitly assess the severity or likelihood of these risks.

Key findings

01Falls, discharge, and practice errors were the three most frequent risk domains, accounting for 68% of the included studies.

02The review identified a lack of information on how occupational therapists explicitly assess the severity and likelihood of risk or facilitate positive risk-taking.

03Most included studies were qualitative or used descriptive surveys, and none were interventional trials.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The review included studies from various settings (acute, community, rehab) that may not fully represent specific intermediate care environments. Many included studies had methodological quality concerns, such as small sample sizes, lack of data saturation, and unclear sampling methods. The definition of 'intermediate care' varies, so the inclusion criteria were broad, potentially diluting the specificity of the findings. Three studies identified in the search were unavailable and thus excluded.

Declared interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a Northumbria University PhD studentship.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the lack of studies on explicit risk assessment as evidence that therapists do not assess risk. The review found no evidence on how it is done, not that it is not done.

Read it on PubMed →