Occupational Therapists' Perceptions of Online Competence Assessment and Evidence-Based Resources.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored U.S. occupational therapists' perceptions of online competence assessment and associated evidence-based resources. METHOD: The study used a cross-sectional design with a survey. Respondents were occupational therapists certifying or recertifying with the National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy in March 2016. RESULTS: The response rate was 88.6%, with 58.5% indicating they had used the online competence assessment platform. A majority agreed that the platform's tools helped them identify clinical knowledge (n = 211; 79.9%) and skill needs (n = 160; 60.8%). Of those who obtained copies of the evidence-based resources (n = 98; 45.6%), 72.5% (n = 71) read at least one. Chi-square analysis demonstrated negative relationships between years as an occupational therapist and clinical skills assessment and between highest degree and use of evidence-based practices. CONCLUSION: Online competence assessment assisted participants in identifying competence needs and evidence-based resources for improving clinical knowledge and skills.

Continuing competence assessment and maintenance in occupational therapy: Scoping review with stakeholder consultation.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Continuing competence activities hold the promise of improving health-care service quality, especially given concerns about system inefficiencies and fragmentation. The aim of this scoping review was to describe the assessment and maintenance of occupational therapists' continuing competence and identify knowledge gaps for future research. A secondary aim was comparing scoping review findings with those from other health-care fields and considering possible impact of varying international regulations. METHODS: A series of database searches retrieved peer-reviewed and grey literature on assessment and maintenance of occupational therapy continuing competence from 1995 to 2015. Themes were developed and findings shared with stakeholders, whose comments drove a second phase: searching for reviews related to continuing competence from allied health, medicine, and nursing, and reviewing websites and documents concerning regulatory requirements for occupational therapy continuing competence in seven English-speaking nations. RESULTS: Twenty-seven sources from the scoping review search met inclusion criteria. Stakeholder consultation validated the themes and preliminary knowledge gaps. Research into other health-care specialties corresponded to findings from the scoping review. The website/document review of occupational therapy regulatory requirements revealed wide variation on both the state/province and national levels. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review highlights gaps in research on effective methods and assessment of occupational therapy continuing competence. Findings suggest a need for research on approaches to continuing competence that incorporate the translation of evidence to practice and address the influence of external factors. Regulatory agencies may address the quality of occupational therapy services by incorporating a variety of professional development options into requirements.