Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 2399923

The Level I fieldwork process.

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a nationwide study in which the factors that relate to the overall Level I fieldwork implementation were compared across a variety of occupational therapy fieldwork settings. Two questionnaires were used to collect data: One was completed by 395 Level I fieldwork site supervisors, and the other by faculty representatives from 40 professional-level academic occupational therapy programs. The data showed that there were more similarities than differences among the fieldwork sites, thus suggesting that a common process is used in most fieldwork placements. The primary factors that differentiated among the various fieldwork settings were variables that tended to describe the settings demographically (e.g., type of employment setting, funding sources). Interesting differences were found among the various fieldwork settings between the amount of supervision given to Level I students and the amount of independent, treatment-oriented performance by the students.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L D Shalik. 1990. The Level I fieldwork process.. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.44.8.700

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

General practitioner attitudes to case conferences: how can we increase participation and effectiveness?

OBJECTIVES: To identify general practitioners' views on the barriers to using case conferencing (as outlined in the Medical Benefits Schedule (MBS) Enhanced Primary Care package) and to develop a set of principles to encourage greater GP participation in case conferences. DESIGN: Qualitative study, involving semistructured questions administered to focus groups of GPs, conducted between April and July 2001 as part of a broader study of case coordination in palliative care. PARTICIPANTS: 29 GPs from urban, regional, and rural areas of Queensland. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Many of the GPs' work practices militated against participation in traditionally structured case conferences. GPs thought the range of MBS item numbers should be expanded to cover alternative methods of liaison (eg, phone consultations with other service providers). The onerous bureaucratic processes required to claim reimbursement were an additional disincentive. CONCLUSIONS: GPs would probably be more likely to participate in case conferences if they were initiated by specialist services and arranged more flexibly to suit GP work schedules.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗