This study addressed the validity and community utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) (Law et al., 1991; 1994; 1998): a measure that now represents a national standard in clinical practice and research in occupational therapy in Canada. The study employed a crossectional design. Participants for the study were former consumers of occupational therapy services, recruited from the Queen's University catchment area (Kingston, North Bay, Oshawa, Perth, Peterborough). A sample of 61 disabled individuals living in the community were recruited. Each individual was sent a package of self-administered measures including the Satisfaction with Performance Scaled Questionnaire, the Reintegration to Normal Living Index, the Life Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the Perceived Problems List. An interview was also arranged with the project coordinator, which was based on the COPM and the Consumer Utility Questionnaire. Multivariate analyses showed that construct validity was supported; scores on the COPM were significantly related to theoretically related constructs: satisfaction with performance, reintegration to normal living and life satisfaction. In addition, criterion validity was supported. A majority of participants (53%), when asked about problems of daily living, spontaneously reported at least one of the problems raised on the COPM. Community utility was evaluated highly by participants, 75% of whom found the COPM useful in identifying and rating their problems, and 100% of whom reported no problems in understanding the COPM.

This study contributes to understanding the practice challenges for occupational therapists, factors that contribute to therapist burnout, and strategies employed to maintain competent practice.

Collaborative practice is receiving increased attention as a model of healthcare delivery that positively influences the effectiveness and efficiency of patient care while improving the work environment of healthcare providers. The collaborative practice assessment tool (CPAT) was developed from the literature to enable interprofessional teams to assess their collaborative practice. The CPAT survey included 56 items across nine domains including: mission and goals; relationships; leadership; role responsibilities and autonomy; communication; decision-making and conflict management; community linkages and coordination; perceived effectiveness and patient involvement; in addition to three open-ended questions. The tool was developed for use in a variety of settings involving a diversity of healthcare providers with the aim of helping teams to identify professional development needs and corresponding educational interventions. The results of two pilot tests indicated that the CPAT is a valid and reliable tool for assessing levels of collaborative practice within teams. This article describes the development of the tool, the pilot testing and validation process, as well as limitations of the tool.

Team-based care using practice guidelines locally adapted can affect positively patient and provider outcomes.

The conceptual framework helps articulate CD's underlying processes and can be used to understand and guide practice.