Occupational Therapy Activities and Intervention Techniques
for Clients With Stroke in Six Rehabilitation Hospitals
Nancy K. Latham,
Diane U. Jette,
Wendy Coster,
Lorie Richards,
Randall J. Smout,
Roberta A. James,
Julie Gassaway,
Susan D. Horn
Nancy K. Latham, PhD, is Research Assistant Professor,
Health and Disability Research Institute, Boston University,
53 Bay State Road, Boston, Massachusetts 02215;
nlatham@bu.edu
Diane U. Jette, DSc, PT, is Professor and Program Director,
Physical Therapy Program, Simmons College, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Wendy Coster, PhD, OTR, is Associate Professor and
Program Director, Therapeutic Studies and Occupational
Therapy, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Lorie Richards, PhD, OTR, is Research Health Scientist,
Veterans Affairs Research Service at the Brain
Rehabilitation Research Center, North Florida/South
Georgia Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
Gainesville, Florida; and Associate Professor, Occupational
Therapy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida.
Randall J. Smout, MS, is Senior Analyst, International
Severity Information Systems, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah.
Roberta A. James is Data Systems Specialist, International
Severity Information Systems, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah.
Julie Gassaway, MS, RN, is Director of Project/Product
Development, International Severity Information Systems,
Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah.
Susan D. Horn, PhD, is Vice President for Research,
International Severity Information Systems, Inc., Salt Lake
City, Utah.
The American Journal of Occupational Therapy
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/ on 09/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
OBJECTIVE. To prospectively monitor occupational therapy activities and intervention techniques used dur-
ing inpatient stroke rehabilitation in order to provide a description of current clinical practice.
METHODS. Data were collected prospectively from 954 clients with stroke receiving occupational therapy
from six U.S. rehabilitation hospitals. Descriptive statistics summarized frequency, intensity, and duration of
occupational therapy sessions; proportion of time spent in 16 therapeutic activities; and proportion of those
activities that included any of 31 interventions.
RESULTS. Clients received on average 11.8 days (SD = 7.2) of occupational therapy, with each session last-
ing on average 39.4 min (SD = 16.9). Upper-extremity control (22.9% of treatment time) and dressing (14.2%
of treatment time) were the most frequently provided activities. Interventions provided most frequently during
upper-extremity control activities were strengthening, motor learning, and postural awareness.
CONCLUSION. Occupational therapy provided reflected an integration of treatment approaches. Upper-
extremity control and basic activities of daily living were the most frequent activities. A small proportion of ses-
sions addressed community integration.
Latham, N. K., Jette, D. U., Coster, W., Richards, L., Smout, R. J., James, R. A., Gassaway, J., & Horn, S. D. (2006).
Occupational therapy activities and intervention techniques for clients with stroke in six rehabilitation hospitals.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 369–378.
troke is the third largest cause of death and one of the leading causes of long-
S term disability in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2000). Significant progress has been made in stroke care over the past
30 years and as a result the proportion of people who survive a stroke has increased
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000). It is now well established that
differences in post-stroke care and rehabilitation have a significant effect on out-
come, with one systematic review finding that clients who received organized inpa-
tient care in a stroke unit were more likely to be alive, independent, and living at
home 1 year after the stroke (Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration, 2003). However,
despite evidence that post-stroke care influences outcomes, the ideal activities or
approaches to treatment that should be included in stroke rehabilitation are still
not well established (Wade & de Jong, 2000).
Occupational therapists play an important role in post-stroke rehabilitation.
The National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy (NBCOT) Practice
Analysis reported that cerebrovascular accident was the most frequent diagnosis
seen by their survey respondents (NBCOT, 2004). Several recent systematic
reviews suggest that occupational therapy after a stroke improves the performance
of some functional tasks and reduces some impairments (Ma & Trombly, 2002;
Steultjens et al., 2003; Trombly & Ma, 2002). However, most trials provide few
details about the range of occupational therapy interventions and activities that
were used across the rehabilitation episode.
Few observational studies exist that describe the nature of occupational thera-
py interventions currently being used for stroke rehabilitation in the United States.
Most studies to date have been conducted in countries outside the United States
(Alexander, Bugge, & Hagen, 2001; Ballinger, Ashburn, Low, & Roderick, 1999;
369
 deWeerdt et al., 2000); have described treatment activities
only in terms of duration or frequency (Alexander et al.,
2001; Bernhardt, Dewey, Thrift, & Donnan, 2004; Sulch,
Perez, Melbourn, & Karla, 2000); or have involved a limit-
ed number of clients (Ballinger et al., 1999; deWeerdt et al.,
2000). The Practice Analysis (NBCOT, 2004) reports the
frequency with which entry-level practitioners use specific
interventions, but does not break these down by client con-
dition and surveyed therapists only within the first 3 years
of their practice.
Given the limitations of reported studies and a lack of
information about how clients with stroke are treated by
occupational therapists in the United States, we undertook
a study to describe the care provided by occupational ther-
apists for clients with stroke in six hospital-based rehabilita-
tion settings within the United States. Our aim was to
describe the occupational therapy plan of care by describing
the types of therapeutic activities that therapists used with
each client. We defined therapeutic activities as whole tasks
that were the focus of a therapy session. In addition, we
wished to capture the intervention techniques that the
occupational therapists used during each of these activities.
We defined intervention techniques as specific treatment
approaches used by occupational therapy practitioners to
facilitate activities. Finally, we collected data about the
duration, frequency, and intensity of occupational therapy
sessions, and the personnel who provided them. This infor-
mation complements and expands information in the
NBCOT Practice Analysis (2004), by providing more
detailed information about current practice with a specific
clinical population by practitioners with a broader range of
experience. In addition, it may provide guidance to clinical
researchers about important elements of occupational ther-
apy that need to be documented in future studies of reha-
bilitation outcomes.
al cohort study, a Clinical Practice Improvement approach
was used in which detailed client, process, and outcome
variables were obtained (Horn, 1997). This study was
approved by the institutional review boards at Boston
University and at each of the participating hospitals and was
classified as exempt because of its observational nature.
Nine hundred and fifty-four clients met the inclusion
criteria, which were a diagnosis code indicating that the
person had experienced a stroke (ICD-9-CM of
430–438.99), was older than 18 years of age, had a recent
stroke (within 1 year of admission) as the reason for admis-
sion, and had no interruption in rehabilitation services of
greater than 30 days (see Table 1 for client characteristics).
The mean age of clients was 66.2 years (SD = 14.2). Men
composed 51% of the sample and women 49%. Fifty-
seven percent of clients were White, 24% were African
American, 4.9% were Asian, and the remaining were of
other backgrounds or unknown race. Forty-three percent
of clients had left-sided hemiplegia, 43% had right-sided
hemiplegia, 10% had bilateral involvement, and the
remainder had other types of involvement.
A total of 180 occupational therapy staff participated in
this study, and of these, 61% were occupational therapists,
38% were occupational therapy assistants, and 1% were
students. In the subset of therapists who provided detailed
information about their work experience (i.e., 27%), the
occupational therapists had an average of 10.3 years of
experience (SD = 8.2, range = 1–32) and the occupational
therapy assistants had 8.3 years (SD = 5.6, range = 2–23).
Most occupational therapists or occupational therapy assis-
tants (69%) worked full time (i.e., 40 hr per week). The
majority of therapists and assistants had obtained some
advanced training in neurology-related or geriatric-related
courses in the past 2 years. The most frequently reported

Table 1. Client Characteristics

Methods Characteristic N = 954
Age (years)
Subjects
Mean 66
SD 14
As part of the Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Project Range 18–95
(PSROP), data were collected between March 2001 to Gender % (n)
August 2003 from consecutive clients with stroke seen at six Male 51 (487)
Female 49 (467)
rehabilitation hospitals in the United States (DeJong et al., Race % (n)
2005). The sites were geographically dispersed (3 in the White 57.2 (546)
African American 24.0 (229)
West, 1 in the Central Mountain region, 1 in the South, Asian 4.9 (47)
and 1 in the East). The facilities were a mixture of free- Other or unknown 13.9 (132)
standing rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation units Impairment % (n)
Left hemiplegia 43.6 (416)
that were linked to acute care hospitals. Physical Medicine Right hemiplegia 43.6 (416)
and Rehabilitation residents were involved in stroke man- Bilateral involvement 10.1 (96)
Other 2.7 (26)
agement in 2 out of 6 of the facilities. For this observation-
370 July/August 2006, Volume 60, Number 4
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/ on 09/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 type of training was in neuromuscular interventions (i.e.,
NDT or neurodevelopmental treatment), in which 59% of
respondents said that they had participated during the past
2 years.
Instrumentation
Forms to record activity and intervention data from each
occupational therapy session and definitions for each of
these terms were developed with input from occupational
therapists involved in care of clients with stroke at each
facility participating in the PSROP (DeJong et al., 2004).
The data collection forms allowed occupational therapy
providers to describe sessions using 16 possible categories of
activities. These included Examination/Evaluation and
activities to remediate performance skill deficits or body
structure or function impairments (i.e., Pre-functional,
Upper Extremity Control, Sitting Balance/Trunk Control,
Transfers, Functional Mobility, Bed Mobility); Activities of
Daily Living (ADL: Bathing, Dressing, Grooming,
Toileting, Feeding/Eating), and Instrumental Activities of
Daily Living (IADL: Home Management, Community
Integration, Leisure Performance, Wheelchair Manage-
ment). Therapists recorded the amount of time spent on
each activity with the client in 5-min increments and up to
5 specific intervention techniques (from a list of 31) that
they used to facilitate performance of that activity. Options
included neuromuscular interventions (7), musculoskeletal
interventions (4), cardiopulmonary interventions (2),
modality interventions (3), cognitive/perceptual/sensory
interventions (4), adaptive and compensatory interventions
(4), equipment interventions (i.e., prescription, application,
fabrication, and ordering), and education and training
interventions (3). Training in the use of assistive devices or
equipment during therapy could be recorded under each
treatment activity, with a list of 20 devices provided. One
category was provided for writing in interventions or equip-
ment not provided on the form. Additional information
recorded on each session included: the amount of time
spent in evaluation, in cotreatment with other disciplines,
and in therapy sessions that included more than one client,
as well as which providers gave care during the session,
including occupational therapists, occupational therapy
assistants, and students (see Figure 1).
Procedure
One occupational therapist at each site was selected as the
lead occupational therapist for this project, and participat-
ed in a 90-min train-the-trainer session, which was con-
ducted by project staff. Before this session, each lead occu-
pational therapist received a training manual that contained
the occupational therapy intervention documentation
The American Journal of Occupational Therapy
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/ on 09/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
form, written instructions for completion of the form, and
definitions of all terms used on the form. The training man-
ual also contained case studies that provided scenarios of
three occupational therapy sessions. A trainer’s and a
trainee’s copy of each case study were provided. The train-
er’s copy provided instructions and descriptive notes about
each case study session, followed by the actual case studies
that described an occupational therapy session, including
amount of time spent on specific activities and assessments
and a completed intervention documentation form. During
the train-the-trainer session conducted by project staff with
the lead occupational therapists, the project team reviewed
the form, instructions, definitions, and care studies in
detail. Participants were encouraged to ask questions and
discuss possible scenarios that might be raised during their
upcoming training sessions with their colleagues at their
respective facilities.
During each site’s internal training sessions (lasting
about 60 min), the lead occupational therapy trainer
reviewed the intervention documentation form (of which
most occupational therapists were familiar because of par-
ticipation in development efforts), instructions for com-
pleting the form, and the definitions of each term used on
the form. The trainer then reviewed the first case scenario
with the trainees and described how the intervention docu-
mentation form was completed. Individually, trainees then
read the second case study and completed the form. The
trainer reviewed the second case study with the group and
discussed form completion. Trainees then completed the
third case scenario and discussed completion of the form.
After this training, during the first month of occupa-
tional therapy intervention documentation form use, each
site’s lead occupational therapist conducted random “co-ses-
sions” with other therapists. During this time, the lead
occupational therapist would observe an occupational ther-
apy session and record it on an intervention documentation
form. The therapist providing the treatment session would
also complete a form and the two were compared and dis-
cussed. The lead occupational therapist continued to serve
as a resource person to the other occupational therapists
throughout the entire form use period.
A member of each site’s project team (admitting nurse,
medical director, project manager) identified clients to
enroll into the study on admission and flagged the client
chart as being a study patient. Other rehabilitation
providers (physicians, therapists [physical, speech, recre-
ational], nurses, social workers) completed their respective
project documentation form for each encounter with each
enrolled client. Data regarding other client characteristics
(e.g., demographics, severity of illness, medications) were
collected from clients’ medical records after their discharge.
371
 Oc c u p a t i on a l T h e r a p y R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A ct i vi t i e s

Duration of Activity Interventions

Enter in 5 minute increments. Enter one intervention code per group of boxes.

©ISIS [International Severity Information Systems], Inc., 2003. Reprinted with permission.
Figure 1. Occupational therapy data collection form

Data Analysis was described by determining duration of each session, the

Descriptive statistics were used to examine characteristics of
clients and characteristics of their episodes of care including
length of stay, number of days occupational therapy was
provided, number of occupational therapy sessions per day,
and intensity of occupational therapy (defined as the num-
ber of days occupational therapy was provided divided by
the total length of stay). The content of treatment sessions
372
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/ on 09/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
proportion of all occupational therapy time spent directed
to the activities listed above, and the proportion of those
activities that included specific interventions. We examined
the proportion of all occupational therapy sessions in which
more than one client was treated by a single provider and
the proportion of sessions for which occupational thera-
pists, occupational therapy assistants, or students were
involved in the care. We also determined combinations of
July/August 2006, Volume 60, Number 4
 activities provided to clients during sessions, the proportion did a group session occur (i.e., more than one client was
of sessions that included examination or evaluation, and the treated by a single provider). See Table 3.
proportion of clients and families who received an educa- More than 94% of clients had some form of examina-
tional intervention. tion or evaluation time recorded, and approximately 7% of
sessions included only examination or evaluation. Table 2
gives the percentage time clients spent in each occupation-
Results al therapy activity. Upper-extremity control (22.9% of total
The mean length of stay for the episode of care was 18.8 treatment time) and dressing activities (14.2% of total treat-
days (SD = 10.3, range = 1–75; see Table 2). Clients ment time) were the most frequently used activities, with
received occupational therapy, on average, 11.8 days (SD = examination or evaluation (10.8%) and pre-functional
7.2, range = 1–53) during an episode of care. On days that activities (9%), the third and fourth most common activi-
the clients received occupational therapy, the average num- ties (see Table 3). Upper-extremity control activities were
ber of occupational therapy sessions per day was 1.6 (SD = defined as the training or facilitation of normal movement,
0.4, range = 1–3), and the average time for each session was strength, range of movement, or alignment in the upper
39.4 min (SD = 16.9, range = 5–240). extremity. Dressing activities were defined as selecting
Seventy percent of the sessions were provided by occu- appropriate clothing and accessories, obtaining clothing
pational therapists, 33% by occupational therapy assistants from storage area, dressing and undressing in a sequential
or aides, and 7% by students. The vast majority of the ses- fashion, and fastening and adjusting clothing, shoes, or per-
sions (91%) were provided one-on-one by an occupational sonal devices. Pre-functional activities were described as
therapy provider. Only 5% of sessions consisted of cotreat- activities that were related to or provided preparation for
ment with another discipline, and in only 11% of sessions functional activities.
Table 4 provides data on the types of interventions that
occupational therapy providers used in each therapeutic
Table 2. Episode Characteristics activity with their patients. Of a total of 24 types of direct
Episodes interventions from which providers could choose, 19 inter-
Characteristic N = 954
ventions were used during at least 5% of the sessions for one
Length of rehabilitation hospital stay (days)
Mean 18.8 or more of the therapeutic activities. All seven educational
SD 10.3 or equipment provision interventions were used during 5%
Range 1–75
Number of days occupational therapy provided
of sessions for any activity. A wheelchair was the only device
Mean 11.8 used during at least 5% of sessions for any activity. Only
SD 7.2 6.5% of patients used a wheelchair during at least one ses-
Range 1–53
Number of occupational therapy sessions per day sion and it was used primarily in transfer and wheelchair
Mean 1.6 management activities.
SD 0.4
Range 1–3
Occupational therapy intensity*
Mean 0.64 Table 3. Session Characteristics
SD 0.19
Sessions
Range 0.02–1.0
Characteristic N = 18,359
Percentage of total intervention time spent in activity (%)
Upper-extremity control 22.9 Duration of Sessions (min)
Dressing 14.2 Mean 39.4
Examination/evaluation 10.8 SD 16.9
Pre-functional 9.0 Range 5–240
Functional mobility 7.1 Sessions with >1 client % (n) 10.8 (1,992)
Home management 6.2 Cotreatment sessions with other healthcare
Transfer 6.1 disciplines % (n) 5 (1,006)
Bathing 4.6 Sessions with occupational therapist % (n) 70 (12,943)
Grooming 4.5 Sessions with OTA or aide % (n) 32 (5,838)
Community integration 3.2 Sessions with student % (n) 7 (1,234)
Toileting 2.8 Sessions with >1 occupational therapy provider % (n) 9 (1,629)
Sitting balance/trunk control 2.6 Activity combinations during sessions
Eating 2.0 (based on N =18,364) %
Leisure performance 1.9 Evaluation only 5.6
Bed mobility 0.8 One activity only 33.3
Wheelchair 0.8 Upper-extremity control 16.1
Dressing 5.5
*Total number of days occupational therapy provided divided by the length of
Functional mobility 2.3
stay in days.

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 373

Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/ on 09/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 Table 4. Interventions Used To Facilitate Activities

Community Integration

% of all sessions that

Leisure Performance

contain intervention
Home Management
Functional Mobility

Upper-Extremity

Sitting Balance
Pre-Functional

Management
Bed Mobility

Wheelchair
Grooming

Transfers
Dressing

Toileting
Bathing
Activity

Control
Eating
Interventions
Neuromuscular
Balance training 37.6 60.5 66.1 62.0 66.6 27.5 76.7 73.5 74.8 49.0 27.8 52.4 38.7 49.7 68.9 44.5
Postural awareness 41.0 64.0 64.5 67.9 64.7 48.3 71.2 73.9 61.4 43.4 27.2 43.9 42.3 52.6 87.0 44.7
Motor learning 42.0 43.7 54.3 56.8 49.6 45.5 51.4 57.1 45.3 37.5 24.1 39.8 51.4 55.0 46.8 42.6
PNF 2.6 5.7 5.4 7.4 4.4 5.9 1.6 1.6 2.3 1.9 0.8 0.3 5.4 3.3 11.8 3.6
NDT 16.1 19.3 18.5 24.6 22.7 14.3 26.5 28.6 19.2 15.0 9.8 27.5 31.7 43.6 47.3 19.1
Constraint induced therapy 1.8 3.6 3.2 3.3 3.8 1.6 2.5 2.2 3.1 2.7 1.8 1.7 4.1 2.9 2.9 2.7
Adaptive/Compensatory
One-handed skills 17.1 37.2 48.8 47.4 28.9 40.8 29.7 40.7 16.2 13.6 7.5 14.6 17.8 30.7 30.0 23.6
Energy conservation 4.7 16.3 11.2 12.7 12.8 10.0 5.5 7.1 8.5 17.7 9.3 4.7 4.4 6.7 5.6 7.0
Environmental adaptation 5.7 28.1 14.5 11.3 28.6 12.7 15.8 16.1 13.7 18.2 13.1 10.3 7.1 20.5 4.8 10.5
Adaptive equipment 6.9 28.2 16.7 11.7 27.2 12.5 18.7 16.8 12.3 13.0 6.1 10.0 8.3 29.2 6.0 10.6
Musculoskeletal
Strengthening 30.5 17.3 22.9 18.8 22.2 14.3 36.6 37.9 45.6 28.0 12.1 47.9 53.7 35.7 47.2 31.5
Mobilization/Manual therapy 9.4 3.2 4.6 4.9 9.7 3.8 12.4 9.4 9.3 4.5 2.3 5.3 16.5 20.1 12.6 7.7
Passive Range of Motion (ROM) 23.8 6.4 9.4 9.6 12.5 7.4 22.9 24.2 18.6 8.2 5.0 29.8 42.5 27.0 32.7 19.4
Edema control 3.1 1.1 1.1 1.4 3.5 1.0 5.5 4.2 2.4 1.5 0.4 1.2 7.5 8.7 3.5 3.3
Aerobic exercise 3.9 2.7 2.5 3.0 2.6 1.8 3.0 3.4 5.1 3.5 2.4 3.2 3.7 7.4 3.4 2.8
Cognitive/Perceptual/Sensory
Cognitive therapy 47.7 44.6 44.5 49.3 43.1 63.0 30.8 35.7 34.3 43.6 38.8 45.6 27.5 42.1 37.4 34.9
Perceptual training 34.8 23.4 29.1 34.2 27.0 40.6 23.7 22.7 21.8 21.7 24.0 25.6 18.8 34.5 24.1 22.5
Visual training 24.7 8.4 11.3 14.9 11.6 19.6 9.6 13.0 11.4 12.0 14.3 14.6 10.2 15.1 10.6 11.1
Sensory training 8.0 3.1 5.1 5.5 4.4 7.2 5.4 4.6 4.8 3.8 3.4 2.9 8.0 8.7 5.0 5.6
Equipment
Prescription 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.6 2.8 0.6 2.5 1.4 1.6 1.0 1.0 0 1.5 2.4 0.8 1.6
Application 2.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.5 2.8 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 0 1.7 2.4 1.0 1.2
Fabrication 2.4 1.6 0.8 1.2 2.5 1.6 2.5 2.4 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.1 4.9 1.3 1.5
Ordering 1.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.0 0 0.3 0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0 0.5 1.3 0.1 0.4
Educational
Client education 34.0 30.7 27.3 27.7 34.0 25.8 44.2 42.6 40.6 43.7 60.4 43.1 34.9 60.4 36.1 30.8
Caregiver education 10.6 12.7 4.9 4.5 14.0 8.0 12.8 9.5 8.3 10.8 19.2 4.7 7.6 11.1 4.1 7.9
Staff education 0.9 0.4 0.26 0.3 0.6 2.1 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.1 0.4
Devices Used
Wheelchair 3.2 7.0 6.6 5.8 9.1 1.6 16.5 16.1 6.4 2.1 2.9 2.7 4.5 26.7 2.4 4.6
a
Sessions include more than one activity. bPercentages <5% not reported. Note. PNF = proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation; NDT = neurodevelopmental treatment.

Overall, 97% of patients or their families received some (42.5% of sessions), and postural awareness (42.3% of ses-
educational intervention and 22.8% of all sessions for all sions). In all the sessions that addressed dressing activities,
patients included some form of education. Of all the ses- the interventions most frequently provided were balance
sions with some form of patient and caregiver education, (included in 66.1% of sessions for dressing activities), pos-
28.2% included education related to community integra- tural awareness (64.5% of sessions), motor learning (54.3%
tion, 24.2% included education related to home manage- of sessions), one-handed skills (48.8% of sessions), and cog-
ment, and 20.8% included education related to upper- nitive therapy (44.5% of sessions). These data probably
extremity control activities. reflect the large emphasis placed on regaining sensorimotor
We looked particularly at the interventions used in the skills in this population.
most frequent activities cited: upper-extremity control and A total of 40.2% of therapy time was spent on direct
dressing. Interventions provided most frequently to address practice of daily life activities, the majority of this time
upper-extremity control were strengthening (included in (28.1%) in basic ADL. Clients engaged in the more com-
53.7% of sessions for upper-extremity control), motor plex activities of leisure performance, home management,
learning (51.4% of sessions), passive range of motion or community integration 12.1% of the time. During
374 July/August 2006, Volume 60, Number 4
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/ on 09/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 almost half their time in occupational therapy, clients were
engaged in activities that directly targeted remediating per-
formance skill deficits or body structure and function
impairments (i.e., upper-extremity control, sitting balance,
bed mobility, wheelchair, pre-functional, transfers).
Discussion
In this descriptive study of occupational therapy provided
to clients during stroke rehabilitation, about 40% of the
occupational therapy provided directly targeted life activi-
ties (i.e., ADL and IADL), whereas half of the therapy time
targeted body function and structure or motor skills that are
presumed to underlie functional limitations post-stroke.
Upper-extremity tasks and dressing were the most fre-
quently provided activities, and accounted for almost half of
the treatment that clients received. Evaluation or examina-
tion activities also composed a significant proportion (10%)
of occupational therapy time. In 6% of patients, no evalua-
tion or examination session was documented. It is probable
that in many of these cases the therapist did do an evalua-
tion, but the time devoted to this was included under each
activity (i.e., a dressing evaluation was recorded under dress-
ing instead of examination or evaluation).
When types of activities were compared, there was
clearly a greater emphasis on basic ADL, such as dressing,
grooming, eating, and toileting than on IADL, such as
home maintenance, or on community integration and
leisure performance. This focus on more basic activities
probably reflects the fact that therapy was taking place in a
hospital setting with clients who were still in the early reha-
bilitation phase. In addition, the average length of stay was
less than 3 weeks, which could limit the time that is avail-
able for more advanced activities. It is interesting to note
that, in the Practice Analysis, 65% of therapists reported
that dressing was the focus of intervention for more than
25% of their clients (NBCOT, 2004). This percentage was
among the five most frequent interventions listed in that
analysis, which covered all practice areas.
Occupational therapists reported using a variety of
interventions to enable each activity. The most commonly
used interventions were neuromuscular interventions, espe-
cially balance training, postural awareness, and motor learn-
ing; however, adaptive approaches, such as teaching one-
handed skills for ADL tasks, were also reported frequently.
The therapists were clearly selective in the interventions
that they chose to use with each activity, because there was
variation in the interventions that were used in each activi-
ty. For example, whereas strengthening was used overall in
31.5% of sessions, it was used in more than half (53.7%) of
upper-extremity activity sessions but in less than 1/5 (17%)
The American Journal of Occupational Therapy
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/ on 09/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
of bathing activities. The frequencies for environmental
adaptations and use of adaptive equipment also varied by
activity, with certain activities (e.g., bathing and toileting)
having much higher frequencies than others. These differ-
ences likely reflect differences in the movement demands of
these important hygiene activities, and the extent to which
commonly available adaptive equipment such as shower
stools may be needed to enable early, safe participation in
the activities.
There are few current evidence-based guidelines for the
provision of intervention to persons with stroke. The
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Guidelines for
Post-Stroke Rehabilitation (Gresham et al., 1995) are now
outdated and the agency cautions that they should no
longer be viewed as guidance for current practice. The most
recent update of the National Clinical Guidelines for Stroke
published in the United Kingdom (Royal College of
Physicians, 2004) includes the general guideline that
“Emerging evidence is showing advantages of a task-specif-
ic training or practice approach over impairment focused
approaches. Giving clients the opportunity to practice tasks
is a major element in improved outcomes” (p. 9). Evidence
that supports this general guideline has been presented in
two syntheses by Trombly and Ma (Ma & Trombly, 2002;
Trombly & Ma, 2002). These authors also present more
specific guidelines regarding the conditions under which
particular approaches appear to improve outcomes (e.g.,
that practicing movements with specific goals appears to
result in more normalized movement trajectories).
However, there is also evidence that some interventions that
target body structure and function impairments also con-
tribute to improved rehabilitation outcomes post-stroke.
For example, the Royal College of Physicians (2002) guide-
lines suggest that emerging evidence supports the use of
resisted exercise to improve motor function, which suggests
that a combination of approaches may lead to successful
outcomes.
Given these recommendations, it is perhaps noteworthy
that a large proportion of occupational therapy time was
spent at the body structure and function impairment or per-
formance skill level, and 16% of sessions involved only
upper-extremity-control activities. These activities target
remediation of performance skill deficits and client factors
(American Occupational Therapy Association, 2002). A
variety of interventions appear to be used in these activities,
including balance training (44.5%), motor learning
(42.6%), and strengthening (31.5%). Overall, the findings
suggest a shift away from neurofacilitation techniques advo-
cated in the 1960s toward more application of motor con-
trol and motor learning approaches. Therapists reported
using Brunnstrom techniques (Brunnstrom, 1970) in fewer
375
 than 2% of sessions, and the percent of sessions in which
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) techniques
were used was also low. However, NDT was reported more
frequently, with a maximum of 28.6% in bed mobility ses-
sions. A recent analysis of physical therapy intervention with
this same sample noted a similar shift in intervention pat-
terns away from facilitation techniques toward application
of motor control and motor learning approaches in the con-
text of functional activities (Jette et al., in press).
Both cognitive therapy and perceptual training were
reported as being used with high frequency during many of
the ADL. In the data collection protocol, cognitive therapy
is defined as including “impulse control, attention, orienta-
tion, memory, problem solving, sequencing, social skills,
safety, insight, and goal setting,” whereas perceptual train-
ing includes “interventions to address apraxia, neglect,
awareness in space, figure ground, and care of sensory
impaired body parts” (full definitions are available from the
first author of this study). Both of these categories contain
a diverse range of approaches, some of which have more
supportive evidence than others. Trombly and Ma recom-
mend cognitive approaches such as structured instruction
and feedback to improve activity performance (Ma &
Trombly, 2002; Trombly & Ma, 2002). Some evidence also
supports interventions that involve forced awareness of
neglected space (in persons with unilateral neglect), which
may be included in the “perceptual training” category. One
limitation of the present study is that we cannot determine
more precisely how the reported interventions were applied
and the extent to which the applications were consistent
with emerging evidence in this area. This applications
research would be a valuable area for further investigation.
As recommended by current occupational therapy
practice guidelines, client education was a significant inter-
vention component for all activities. As might be expected,
this category was the most frequent intervention for ses-
sions that were addressing community integration.
Caregiver education was a less frequent intervention for
most activities, which is likely explained by the fact that
families were not present during the majority of sessions.
Nonetheless, caregiver education was a feature of almost
20% of sessions that addressed community integration.
Thus, it appears that practitioners are actively engaging
both the client and family when discharge with return to
community is the focus of treatment. On the downside,
only 5% of sessions addressed either community integra-
tion or leisure performance. The paucity of time spent in
community integration or leisure performance is unfortu-
nate because many persons with stroke have significant
restriction in activities after discharge (Corr & Bayer, 1992)
and activity restriction has been shown to be highly related
376
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/ on 09/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
to depression (Nieboer et al., 1998; Williamson, 2000;
Williamson & Schulz, 1992). Button (2000) found that
patients considered that the real rehabilitation was the
translation of learning from the rehabilitation context to the
home and community context.
Although this study provides an initial description of
actual occupational therapy practice for persons with
stroke, it is important to note several limitations. Most
important, we did not have specific information about each
client’s pattern of impairments, and thus were unable to
link the choice of specific interventions to the client’s
unique profile of difficulties. Thus, we were not able to
examine variations in practice for persons with similar
impairment profiles. This study also summarized the activ-
ities for all clients across their entire therapy episode. Future
analyses might explore whether clients with greater func-
tional abilities or clients who were preparing for discharge
participated in more advanced activities.
Although the therapists who provided data for this
study were trained in the use of data collection forms, and
written definitions were provided in the training manual,
no specific test of reporting reliability was conducted. Thus,
there may have been some degree of misclassification of
interventions and activities. However, given the large num-
ber of participants and sessions, we do not expect these ran-
dom errors to have had a large effect on the results.
This study provided a broad sketch of current occupa-
tional therapy practice for persons with stroke. It suggests
an initial framework to describe intervention techniques
and activities, from which more refined descriptions may be
developed. Without such work to characterize the actual
processes of occupational therapy, it will be difficult to con-
duct more precise examinations of the effectiveness of our
services. Such studies are needed in order to identify the
specific elements or approaches that lead to better outcomes
for persons with stroke.
Conclusion
Occupational therapy provided to clients with stroke at in-
patient rehabilitation facilities reflected an integration of
multiple treatment approaches to facilitate performance of
daily activities. The greatest emphasis was on increasing
upper-extremity control and improving performance of
basic ADL. Most occupational therapy was provided on an
individual basis, for an average duration of about 40 min
per session, across an average hospital stay of less than 3
weeks. A small proportion of therapy time was spent on
leisure and community integration, suggesting the need for
occupational therapy services after discharge that address
these activities. ▲
July/August 2006, Volume 60, Number 4
 Acknowledgments
Funding for this project was provided by: The National
Institute on Disability & Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)
Grant # H133B990005 establishing the Rehabilitation
Research and Training Center on Medical Rehabilitation
Outcomes at Sargent College in Boston, Massachusetts,
with subcontracts to the Institute for Clinical Outcome
Studies in Salt Lake City, Utah; and the NRH Center for
Health & Disability Research at the National Rehabili-
tation Hospital and the MedStar Research Institute in
Washington, DC; the U.S. Army & Materiel Command
(Cooperative Agreement Award # DAMD17-02-2-0032)
establishing the NRH Neuroscience Research Center at the
National Rehabilitation Hospital in Washington, DC; the
Boston University Aging Research Center; and resources at
the North Florida/South Georgia VA Medical Center,
Gainesville, Florida.
The authors wish to acknowledge the role and contri-
butions of the occupational therapists, occupational therapy
assistants, patients, and staff at each of the participating sites
in the Post Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Project. In par-
ticular, the authors wish to acknowledge the contributions
of: Alan Jette (Director, Health and Disability Research
Institute, Boston University); Brendan Conroy, MD (Stroke
Recovery Program, National Rehabilitation Hospital,
Washington, DC); Richard Zorowitz, MD (Department of
Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); David Ryser,
MD (Rehabilitation Department, LDS Hospital, Salt Lake
City, Utah); Jeffrey Teraoka, MD (Division of Physical
Medicine & Rehabilitation, Stanford University, Palo Alto,
California); Frank Wong, MD, and LeeAnn Sims, RN
(Rehabilitation Institute of Oregon, Legacy Health Systems,
Portland, Oregon); and Murray Brandstater, MD (Loma
Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California).
References
Alexander, H., Bugge, C., & Hagen, S. (2001). What is the asso-
ciation between the different components of stroke rehabili-
tation and health outcomes? Clinical Rehabilitation, 15,
207–215.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2002).
Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and pro-
cess. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 609–639.
Ballinger, C., Ashburn, A., Low, J., & Roderick, P. (1999).
Unpacking the black box of therapy—A pilot study to
describe occupational and physiotherapy interventions for
people with stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation, 13, 301–309.
Bernhardt, J., Dewey, H., Thrift, A., & Donnan, G. (2004).
Inactive and alone: Physical activity within the first 14 days
of acute stroke unit care. Stroke, 35, 1005–1009.
The American Journal of Occupational Therapy
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/ on 09/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
Brunnstrom, S. (1970). Movement therapy in hemiplegia: A neuro-
physiological approach. New York: Harper & Row.
Button, C. R. (2000). Living with stroke: A phenomenological
study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, 301–309.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). CDC Fact
Book 2000/2001. Atlanta: Author.
Corr, S., & Bayer, A. (1992). Poor functional status of stroke
patients after hospital discharge: Scope for intervention?
British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 383–385.
DeJong, G., Horn, S. D., Conroy, B., Nichols, D., & Healton, E.
B. (2005). Opening the black box of post stroke rehabilita-
tion: Stroke rehabilitation patients, processes and outcomes.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(12),
S1–S7.
DeJong, G., Horn, S. D., Gassaway, J. A., Slavin, M. D., &
Dijkers, M. P. (2004). Toward a taxonomy of rehabilitation
interventions: Using an inductive approach to examine the
“black box” of rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation, 85(4), 678–686.
deWeerdt, W., Selz, B., Nuyens, G., Staes, F., Swinnen, D., van
de Winckel, A., et al. (2000). Time use of stroke patients in
an intensive rehabilitation unit: A comparison between a
Swiss and Belgian setting. Disability & Rehabilitation, 22(4),
181–186.
Gresham, G. E., Duncan, P. W., Stason, W. B., Adams, J. H. P.,
Adelman, A. M., et al. (1995). Post-stroke rehabilitation:
Assessment, referral, and patient management. Clinical practice
guideline. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research (AHCPR), U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
Horn, S. D. (1997). Clinical practice improvement methodology:
Implementation and evaluation. Salt Lake City, UT: Faulkner
& Gray.
Jette, D. U., Latham, N. K., Smout, R. J., Gassaway, J., Slavin,
M. D., & Horn, S. D. (2005). Physical therapy interven-
tions for patients with stroke in in-patient rehabilitation
facilities. Physical Therapy, 85(3), 238–248.
Ma, H., & Trombly, C. A. (2002). A synthesis of the effects of
occupational therapy for persons with stroke, Part II:
Remediation of impairments. American Journal of Occupa-
tional Therapy, 56, 260–274.
National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy
(NBCOT). (2004). National Board for Certification in
Occupational Therapy Practice Analysis 2004. Gaithersburg,
MD: Author.
Nieboer, A. P., Schulz, R., Matthews, K. A., Scheier, M. F.,
Ormel, J., & Lindenberg, S. M. (1998). Spousal caregivers’
activity restriction and depression: A model for changes over
time. Social Science and Medicine, 47, 1361–1371.
Royal College of Physicians. (2004). National clinical guidelines
on stroke. London: Royal College of Physicians.
Steultjens, E. M. J., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., van de Nes, J. C.
M., Cup, E. H. C., & van den Ende, C. H. M. (2003).
Occupational therapy for stroke patients: A systematic
review. Stroke, 34, 676–687.
Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration. (2003). Organised inpatient
(stroke unit) care for stroke. Abstract retrieved April 17, 2006,
from http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000197.html
377
 Sulch, D., Perez, I., Melbourn, A., & Karla, L. (2000). Random-
ized controlled trial of integrated (managed) care pathway
for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke, 31(8), 1929–1934.
Trombly, C. A., & Ma, H. (2002). A synthesis of the effects of
occupational therapy for persons with stroke, Part I:
Restoration of roles, tasks, and activities. American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 56, 250–259.
Neurorehabilitation Self-Paced Clinical Course Series
Gordon Muir Giles, PhD, DipCOT, OTR/L, FAOTA, Series Senior Editor
his Series is made up of a prerequisite Core SPCC and 3 Diagnosis-Specific SPCCs. Complete the Core
T SPCC and opt for any or all of the Diagnosis-Specific SPCCs which offer in-depth information on key
concepts presented in the Core.
Core Concepts in Neurorehabilitation
Gordon Muir Giles, PhD, DipCOT, OTR/L, FAOTA, Series Senior Editor
.7 AOTA CEUs (7 NBCOT PDUs/7 contact hours)
(Order #3019-J)
$130 AOTA Members, $184 Nonmembers
Diagnosis-Specific SPCCs (Core SPCC is prerequisite)
Each: 1.0 AOTA CEU (10 NBCOT PDUs/10 contact hours)
$185 AOTA Members, $263 Nonmembers
■ Neurorehabilitation for Traumatic Brain Injury
Kathleen Golisz, MA, OTR, BCN, Editor (Order #3020-J)
■ Neurorehabilitation for Stroke
Margaret Newsham Beckley, PhD, OTR/L, BCN, BCG, Editor
(Order #3021-J)
■ Neurorehabilitation for Dementia-Related Diseases
Mary A. Corcoran, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA, Editor (Order #3022-J)
378
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/ on 09/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
Wade, D. T., & de Jong, B. A. (2000). Recent advances in reha-
bilitation. British Medical Journal, 320, 1385–1388.
Williamson, G. M. (2000). Extending the activity restriction
model of depressed affect: Evidence from a sample of breast
cancer patients. Health Psychology, 19, 339–347.
Williamson, G. M., & Schulz, R. (1992). Pain, activity restriction
and symptoms of depression among community-residing
elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology, 47, 367–372.
Purchase the Core SPCC with
1 Diagnosis-Specific SPCC to Save!*
Core and Stroke
Order #3021K-J
$297 AOTA Members
$422 Nonmembers
*Inquire for savings on Core and 2 or 3
Diagnosis-Specific SPCCs.
Call 877-404-AOTA
Shop www.aota.org
(Books, Products, & CE)
SP-92
July/August 2006, Volume 60, Number 4