An Investigation into the Use of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) in Clinical Practice

This study aimed to investigate how occupational therapists used the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) in their clinical practice following an AMPS training course. Questionnaires and group interviews were used over a 9-month period to follow up 53 occupational therapists and establish how they were using the AMPS in their workplace. It explored the difficulties that they experienced in implementing the AMPS in their clinical practice and using the AMPS with their client group and within their clinical team.

The results showed that 96% of the occupational therapists were using the AMPS in their clinical practice at 5 months following training and 83% were still using it at 9 months. The difficulties experienced included problems associated with low staffing levels, high workloads or lack of time to introduce new work skills. Success was dependent on a supportive working environment, especially from managers, and adequate time available to allow for the development of a new skill. Occupational therapy managers need to support therapists following training to make the best use of the time and the cost involved in training individuals to use the AMPS.

Implementing the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) in the Workplace: A Comparison of the Experiences of Occupational Therapists and New Graduates

Learning to use new skills through continuing professional education courses is an important part of continuing professional development, contributing towards the evidence of competence to practise. Few studies have examined how such new learning is used in professional practice.

This study investigated the experiences of occupational therapists when learning to use the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) and whether years of experience or clinical area affected how the AMPS was used in practice. Twenty-three occupational therapists who undertook a 5-day AMPS course completed three questionnaires over a 10-month period. Thirteen were senior level occupational therapists and 10 were new graduates about to commence employment in their first post.

Significant differences between the two groups were found in three areas: the new graduates experienced more difficulties when starting to use the AMPS, completed fewer assessments and found workplace difficulties more time consuming. The two groups shared many difficulties when learning to use a new skill and implementing it within workplace teams, but the analysis of the ranking of these difficulties using the Mann-Whitney U test demonstrated no overall difference between the two groups. Successful implementation of the AMPS for all the participants depended on having sufficient time for new learning to take place and on support from managers so that they could change elements of practice to accommodate the use of new skills.

The Assessment of Motor and Process Skills: An Evaluation of the Impact of Training on Service Delivery

Thirty-six occupational therapists that completed a training course on the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS), held in the West Midlands, took part in a follow-up evaluation. This examined the effectiveness of the AMPS training on the occupational therapy service delivery. Twenty-eight structured interviews were carried out with occupational therapists from the West Midlands region and eight postal questionnaires returned from occupational therapists outside the region.

The outcome indicated that observation skills had improved and that the AMPS was an appropriate tool to use for the purposes of assessment, guiding intervention and measuring outcomes of occupational therapy. There were variations in the ease with which the AMPS was administered with different client groups, but 89% of the occupational therapists were still using the AMPS at 9 months following training across a range of services. The main difficulties encountered were a lack of access to a computer and the additional support needed for the AMPS to be fully integrated into clinical practice.

The adaptability of the AMPS as a standardised assessment and outcome measure makes it a good choice of tool to use across an occupational therapy service. The effects of the AMPS training on such a service are discussed, with recommendations for managers planning the distribution of limited training budgets and the implications for service development needs.

Content comparison of occupation-based instruments in adult rheumatology and musculoskeletal rehabilitation based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

OBJECTIVE

To compare the content of clinical, occupation-based instruments that are used in adult rheumatology and musculoskeletal rehabilitation in occupational therapy based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).

METHODS

Clinical instruments of occupational performance and occupation in adult rehabilitation and rheumatology were identified in a literature search. All items of these instruments were linked to the ICF categories according to 10 linking rules. On the basis of the linking, the content of these instruments was compared and the relationship between the capacity and performance component explored.

RESULTS

The following 7 instruments were identified: the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills, the Sequential Occupational Dexterity Assessment, the Jebson Taylor Hand Function Test, the Moberg Picking Up Test, the Button Test, and the Functional Dexterity Test. The items of the 7 instruments were linked to 53 different ICF categories. Five items could not be linked to the ICF. The areas covered by the 7 occupation-based instruments differ importantly: The main focus of all 7 instruments is on the ICF component activities and participation. Body functions are covered by 2 instruments. Two instruments were linked to 1 single ICF category only.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians and researchers who need to select an occupation-based instrument must be aware of the areas that are covered by this instrument and the potential areas that are not covered at all.