You are on page 1of 4

Activity Plan #2:

Medical Play Matching Game (Bedside Activity)

Jennifer Eazell
CCMC Practicum
18 September 2017
Jennifer Eazell
CCMC Practicum
18 September 2017
Activity Plan #2:

Activity Name: Medical Play Matching Game

Target Age/Developmental Level(s):

 School-Age
 Concrete Operational
 Industry vs. Inferiority

Materials Needed:

 Paper
 Scissors
 Numbered Medical Procedure Images (Access to the internet to search for them and a
printer to print them out)
 Laminating Paper

Skills Needed:

 Fine Motor Skill development

Therapeutic Rationale:

 Familiarization with procedures


 Coping
 Medical Play/Therapeutic Play
 Sense of Control
 Cognitive stimulation

Goals:

 The goal of the intervention is to help relieve stress and anxiety surrounding an upcoming

procedure through the utilization of play, distraction, and education.

Plan:

 The plan is to create memory cards specific to the child’s upcoming procedure. Each card

will have a number on it signifying the order of the step in the procedure process. I will

provide the child with the cards and give them the freedom to play it on their own or with
me if they so wish. As the child plays the matching game, I will ask them questions such

as “what do you think is happening here?” or “can you put them in number order?”. I will

let the child guide my questions and answers by gauging how much they want to

hear/know about step in the procedure in relation to their coping. If I child seems more

receptive I may ask more questions or they may ask more questions which I will answer

honestly. If the child is less receptive to answering questions and appears to just want to

process with the visuals that’s ok too. At the end of the activity, the CCLS can check for

processing and understanding by asking questions like “what do you think?” or “can you

tell me about what the steps of the procedure are?” or “do you have anything you’re

confused about?”. Then, I can adjust my activity from there after review of understanding.

Accommodations:

Can be modified for preschool age children with simpler cards or by taking out some of

the cards that are more complex cards. By removing the cards that may not be necessary or not

appropriate for the child, you can avoid overwhelming the child and avoid making the game too

complex cognitively.

Evaluation:

Overall, the intervention went well. I modified the intervention for a 4-year-old patient by

removing certain cards that I found not necessary for the child’s specific situation and/ not

developmentally appropriate in order to simplify the game. The patient appeared to enjoy it

based on his smile and was able to use exploratory play through a game that also helps to teach

him about medical tools and the hospital. The game helped to familiarize him with the hospital

setting and relieve anxieties surrounding the unknown and proved to be a good educational tool.

Additionally, I think it helped mom and dad interact with him too as mom and dad traded off
playing with him as they also attended to preparing his lunch and other things. The game also

helped to assess where the patient was at developmentally in terms of his language, cognitive

skills, and motor skill ability. With each match in the game, the patient demonstrated his

cognitive and language skills were developmentally appropriately in his recognition of pictures

with the use simple words, as supported by Piaget’s preoperational stage, which is guided by

representational thought. The patient’s motor skills appeared developmentally appropriate as

demonstrated by his ability to grasp the cards with ease showing the beginnings of fine motor

skill development typically shown by 4 year olds. When we finished the game, parents

demonstrated their satisfaction through smiles and verbal expressions of thankfulness for my

interactions with the patient.

You might also like