Page 169 - Petelin, Ana, et al. 2019. Eds. Zdravje otrok in mladostnikov / Health of Children and Adolescents. Proceedings. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 169
ation, (3) reasons for input, (4) occupational therapy work process, (5) barri- inclusion of children with special needs: collaboration with parents 167
ers. Here we present the first three categories which help to answer RQ2.
The category “first contact” related to the initiators of the collaboration
and the circumstances under which the occupational therapist made the first
contact with the school. The involvement of occupational therapists in the
schoolwork combined the elements of an established protocol (e.g., referral, de-
cree) and mutual responsibility (from the school and from the therapist). Oc-
cupational therapy input was usually a part of the school entry preparations of
the child with special needs. When the work of occupational therapists was not
well recognized, the parents took the lead. One participant expressed: “Parents
act as a link, and we encourage them to communicate to the school our willing-
ness to cooperate. However, it also depends on the readiness of the school” (OT1).
A similar experience was described by another participant: “This first contact
is usually through the parents. I offer assistance and then it’s either through the
parents or sometimes, the teachers and the school look for help. I do everything
through the parents. Everything is via them. So, most often, I tell the parents that
it’s possible for me to visit the classroom because the teachers usually don’t even
know about it. So, the parents make the first contact. I do this also so that the
teachers know that an external person is going to visit” (OT6).
The category “reasons for input” pertained to the main reasons for occu-
pational therapy input. Most often, the motives related to the child and their
development as well as the parents and the school’s desire to receive occupa-
tional therapy input. Frequently, the involvement of the parents resulted in the
implementation of the intervention and its continuation. The overall conclu-
sion was that the input was usually requested when the school encountered dif-
ficulties that were beyond their expertise.
The category “communication” related to information exchange and the
circumstances under which the exchange happened. During the exchange, the
differences between different professionals and their perspectives sometimes
became more apparent. Occupational therapists needed to explain clearly what
the child’s deficits were and how to make them more acceptable. Parents often
acted as messengers between different professionals and ensured that the rec-
ommendations were enacted in the home environment. Often, however, the ex-
change happened with the child’s assistant rather than with the teacher. One
participant explained: “In my experience, the assistants take all the work on.
Sometimes even too much. So, the contact is only with the assistant. When I
come to the classroom, the teacher introduces herself, but all the other contact is
with the assistant” (OT3).
Discussion
Our findings suggest that actively engaged parents are often vital to the suc-
cess of interprofessional collaboration and inclusion. Many actions are taken
on their request. Both teachers and occupational therapists described how the
ers. Here we present the first three categories which help to answer RQ2.
The category “first contact” related to the initiators of the collaboration
and the circumstances under which the occupational therapist made the first
contact with the school. The involvement of occupational therapists in the
schoolwork combined the elements of an established protocol (e.g., referral, de-
cree) and mutual responsibility (from the school and from the therapist). Oc-
cupational therapy input was usually a part of the school entry preparations of
the child with special needs. When the work of occupational therapists was not
well recognized, the parents took the lead. One participant expressed: “Parents
act as a link, and we encourage them to communicate to the school our willing-
ness to cooperate. However, it also depends on the readiness of the school” (OT1).
A similar experience was described by another participant: “This first contact
is usually through the parents. I offer assistance and then it’s either through the
parents or sometimes, the teachers and the school look for help. I do everything
through the parents. Everything is via them. So, most often, I tell the parents that
it’s possible for me to visit the classroom because the teachers usually don’t even
know about it. So, the parents make the first contact. I do this also so that the
teachers know that an external person is going to visit” (OT6).
The category “reasons for input” pertained to the main reasons for occu-
pational therapy input. Most often, the motives related to the child and their
development as well as the parents and the school’s desire to receive occupa-
tional therapy input. Frequently, the involvement of the parents resulted in the
implementation of the intervention and its continuation. The overall conclu-
sion was that the input was usually requested when the school encountered dif-
ficulties that were beyond their expertise.
The category “communication” related to information exchange and the
circumstances under which the exchange happened. During the exchange, the
differences between different professionals and their perspectives sometimes
became more apparent. Occupational therapists needed to explain clearly what
the child’s deficits were and how to make them more acceptable. Parents often
acted as messengers between different professionals and ensured that the rec-
ommendations were enacted in the home environment. Often, however, the ex-
change happened with the child’s assistant rather than with the teacher. One
participant explained: “In my experience, the assistants take all the work on.
Sometimes even too much. So, the contact is only with the assistant. When I
come to the classroom, the teacher introduces herself, but all the other contact is
with the assistant” (OT3).
Discussion
Our findings suggest that actively engaged parents are often vital to the suc-
cess of interprofessional collaboration and inclusion. Many actions are taken
on their request. Both teachers and occupational therapists described how the
