Sweetland, J., & Craik, C. (2001). The use of evidence-based practice by occupational therapists who treat adult stroke patients. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(5), 256-260.

Ikiugu, M. N., & Ciaravino, E. A. (2007). Psychosocial conceptual practice models in occupational therapy: Building adaptive capability. Elsevier Health Sciences. This is a link to a free PDF of an entire textbook about psychosocial practice models in occupational therapy. The book is divided into five parts. The first section covers background information about occupational therapy, including the historical origins of the profession as well as paradigm shifts that have occurred throughout the history of the profession. The second section covers conceptual foundations of psychosocial occupational therapy, including a discussion about how the complexity/chaos theoretical framework serves as a basis for occupational therapy practice. The third section of the book discusses general practice considerations, including client evaluation, the therapeutic relationship, use of groups, clinical reasoning, cultural considerations, and ethical decision making. The fourth section of the book covers specific psychosocial interventions. The fifth section of the book discusses the application of occupational therapy across the continuum of care, ranging from consideration of age and developmental stages to application of psychosocial occupational therapy principles in the community. Although I haven't read this textbook in it's entirety, I have found the case studies very useful when addressing psychosocial needs of clients. I highly recommend that everyone save this PDF textbook for future reference.

AOTA. Occupational Therapy Assistant Supervision Requirements. This AOTA document summarizes laws for supervision of COTAs by state. I compared some of the supervision laws of Ohio and Kentucky because I will most likely be working in one or both of these states. As I read through the specific laws for each of these states, I was surprised by the differences. For practitioners living near the border of multiple states, being well-versed in specific state laws will be essential for protecting our licensure. I summarized just a couple specific laws of these two states to give you a better idea of how they may differ state to state. This is a very important document to keep handy, and it goes into much more detail than what I've provided here. In Kentucky, supervising OTs must provide no less than 4 hours per month of general supervision for each COTA, which must include no less than 2 hours per month of face-to-face supervision. This law is more specific in Ohio. In Ohio, OTs must provide supervision at least once a week for all COTAs who are in their first year of practice. The OT must provide supervision at least once a month for COTAs beyond their first year of practice. Ohio law specifies that co-signing client documentation alone does not meet the minimum level of supervision. Supervision is specified as an interactive process that includes review of the following: client assessment, client reassessment, treatment/intervention plan, intervention, and discontinuation of treatment/intervention plan. In Kentucky, OTs may not have more than the equivalent of 3 full time COTAs under supervision at any 1 time. In Ohio, the number of COTAs an OT can supervise varies based upon the OTs job duties. If the OT performs evaluations, direct treatment, and supervision of OT personally, an OT may supervise up to 4 COTAs. However, if the OT does NOT provide direct treatment, the OT may supervise up to 6 COTAs.

Thompson, L., Dawson, K., Ferdig, R., Black, E., Boyer, J., Coutts, J., & Black, N. (2008). The intersection of online social networking with medical professionalism. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(7), 954-957. This study examined the frequency and content of online social networking among medical students and residents. The results revealed that 44.5% of the medical trainees in this study had Facebook accounts. Only a third of these accounts were made private. Many of these accounts were publicly accessible, had personally identifiable information, and displayed potentially unprofessional material. The authors conclude that it is important for for students to receive education about the intersection of personal and professional identities. As we begin our professional careers, I think this topic is important for us to keep in mind. There could be ramifications of sharing personal information publicly. We may not be accepted for a job, or we could even be fired if information on our public profiles displays unprofessional behavior. Publicly displaying unprofessional behavior can affect the way we are viewed by our employers and by our clients. I found it surprising that so many of the students in this study had publicly accessible profiles, and I think we should all consider reviewing our profiles, deleting potentially unprofessional content, and making our information private.

Atwal, A., & Caldwell, K. (2003). Ethics, occupational therapy and discharge planning: Four broken principles. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 50(4), 244-251. This article examines ethical dilemmas occupational therapists may face during discharge planning. Data was collected from ten occupational therapists to determine how well therapists are able to follow the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Researchers found that the therapists in this study unintentionally breached these four principles. The authors speculate that a push for speedy discharges leaves many therapists facing ethical dilemmas. The authors offer solutions for eliminating breaches of each of the four ethical principles listed above. They suggest that utilizing a multidisciplinary approach may offer a means of discussing ethical concerns so that practitioners are better able to provide ethical care.

Sniderman, A., LaChapelle, K., & Rachon, N. (2013). The necessity for clinical reasoning in the era of evidence-based medicine. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 88(10), 1108-1114. The authors of this article claim that evidence is often contradictory, insufficient, and may not apply to all individuals. Therefore, clinical reasoning is a necessary skill for practitioners to possess in order to make the best choices for our clients. Clinical reasoning is defined as the pragmatic process of expert clinical problem solving. The authors note that clinical reasoning is not the same as intuitive decision-making. Clinical reasoning requires is a disciplined, analytical, scientific approach to clinical problems. Research limitations discussed in this article include lack of evidence, incomplete evidence, conflicting evidence, low generalizability of RCTs, and limited transferability of group results to individuals. Although clinicians need to utilize available evidence to guide clinical decisions, it is important for clinicians to be aware of limitations in research to make sound clinical decisions.