Subject: HSO 305
Assignment Task 1: Case Report
Word count: 945 words
Student Name: Samantha Hewitt
Student Number: 211 300 903
Due Date: Monday the 15th of April

Client background:

Name: Brady
Age: 14
Gender: Male
Date of Assessment: Monday, 1 April 2013

Family:
Brady lives with his mother, father and 3 siblings. Brady, along with his twin brother, is the youngest. Brady has a large Italian family which whom he sees on a regular basis.
School:
Brady is currently studying year 9 at St Patricks College a mainstream school in Ballarat. Brady catches a bus for 10 minutes to and from school. Brady reports that he is enjoying school but sometimes struggles to make friends. However, Brady’s mother reports that this has improved over the past year.
Interests:
Brady reports that in his spare time he enjoys playing video games on his PlayStation 3. He enjoys playing with his twin brother outside in the pool and also practicing soccer. Brady also likes to read/ watch science fiction books and movies.

COPM Assessment:
Verbal and written consent was given from Brady to participate in the Modified Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) due to his inability to participate in everyday activities.
The COPM is an assessment tool used by Occupational therapist to gain information regarding individual’s issues in regards to their occupational performance (Kirsh, Cockburn, Lynn, 2009). The COPM is a self-reporting system and tool that supports goal setting whilst promoting a positive client and therapist relationship.
The COPM is a semi-structured interview. To gain information and score the COPM, clients are asked to self-rate their performance across three main areas on a ten-point scale, 1 being “not important at all”, not satisfied at all”, or “not able to do it”, and 10 being “extremely important”, “extremely satisfied”, or “able to do it well” (McColl & Pollock, 2005). These scores are used across three domains; self-care involving personal care and mobility, Productivity involving paid and unpaid work, household tasks, school, and play, and finally Leisure involving recreation and socialisation.

For the purpose of Brady’s assessment, a slightly modified version of the COPM was used. The obliteration of the ‘paid/unpaid work’ category to make the COPM more relevant to Brady.
This standardized measure was used to gain information regarding Brady’s occupational performance issues directly from Brady and to determine improvement based on goals set by client (Colquhoun, Letts, Law, MacDermid & Edwards, 2010). The combination of open and closed questions invited Brady to elaborate answers and also answer them specifically regarding his performance (McColl & Pollock, 2005). Limitations of this tool, however, include its reliance on interviewing skills by the therapist, and also time constraints.

Scores of COPM:
Table 1. The following table outlines five major areas of concern regarding Brady’s occupational performance and satisfaction ratings from the 10-point Liekart scale:

Five major areas of concern: | Performance: | Satisfaction: | Expressing self - | 4 | 4 | Understanding and interaction with others - | 4 | 4 | Showing initiative with household chores and duties - | 3 | 4 | Hygiene - | 6 | 7 | Focusing on school work - | 5 | 4 | Total Score: | 4.4 | 4.6 |
The quantitive scores of the COPM have indicated that a mean score of 4.4 out of 10 has been achieved for Brady’s performance across his five problem areas in terms of his performance in these areas, with his satisfaction rating being 4.6, these scores indicate room for potential improvement.
Qualitative analysis of this data in regards to the COPM will provide insight into contextual factors that affect Brady’s occupational performance. Issues outlined in the above table have been explored across the three domains and in greater depth. Occupational therapist noted issues to gain further information to develop goals and a follow up assessment.

Potential intervention goals:
Short-term goals; * Brady will engage in conversation with his parents and siblings about his day at school and his homework at least twice per week for a month, with a goal of four times per week by the end of four months. * Brady will initiate helping with the dishes after dinner at home with only one prompt per day by the end of the month and will require no prompts by the end of three months. * Brady will make partner up with a student in pair work at school other than his brother at least once a fortnight by the end of one month, and at least once a week by the end of three months. * Brady will shower independently with only one prompt per day to shower per day by the end of one month, and with no prompts by the end of two months.

Long-term goals; * Brady will engage and start conversation every night of the week about his school day after six months of having intervention strategies in place. * Brady will have given chores to complete at home five days a week, which he will complete after dinner with no prompts at the end of six months. * Brady will partner up with a mix of students at school, including his brother, when required to do group work with confidence at the end of six months. * Brady will set his alarm and wake up with adequate time to shower before school with no prompts at the end of six months.
Follow up Assessment:
The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory or the PEDI is used to measure both capability and performance. This is standardized assessment observes self-care, mobility, and social function (Jaffe, Humphry & Case-Smith, 2010) and would be beneficial to track Brady’s improvements as a follow up measure. The PEDI identifies key areas of concern as outlined in this report. This particular tool has the intended outcome of determining a child’s strengths. Additionally, a Paediatric Progress Assessment on Social Development would be useful to further identify barriers and hurdles regarding Brady’s difficulties interacting with his peers at school.

Reference list:

Colquhoun, H., Letts, L., Law, M., MacDermid, J & Edwards, M. (2010). Routine administration of the COPM: effect on functional outcome. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 57, 111-113.

Jaffe, L., Humphry, R., & Case-Smith, J. (2010). Working with families. In J. Case-Smith & J. O’Brien (Eds.), Occupational Therapy for Children (pp. 129-135). Missouri: Elsevier.

Kirsh, B., Cockburn, Lynn. (2009). The Canadian occupational performance measure. A tool for recovery-based practice. Retrieved from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/36039183/canadian-occupational-performance-measure-tool-recovery-based-practice

McColl, M., & Pollock, N. (2005). Measuring occupational performance using a client- centred perspective. In M. Law, C. Baum & W. Dunn (Eds.), Measuring Occupational Performance (pp. 84-89). Thorofare: SLACK Incorporated.