Procedural Reasoning Analysis: Occupational Therapy Report

This report delves into the concept of procedural reasoning within the field of occupational therapy (OT). It examines how occupational therapists utilize clinical reasoning to address patient ailments and disabilities, drawing upon key articles by Fleming (1991) and Lyons & Crepeau (2001). The analysis highlights the use of various problem-solving methods, including hierarchical approaches and hypothesis generation, to determine appropriate treatment interventions. The report contrasts the perspectives of Fleming and Lyons & Crepeau regarding therapist-patient interaction, emphasizing the significance of procedural reasoning in guiding OT professionals to critically evaluate patient conditions and devise effective treatment plans. References to Coviello et al. (2019) and Tomlinson (2015) are included to further illustrate the application and importance of procedural reasoning in occupational therapy practice, including its role in supervision and the coordination of care.

Running Head: PROCEDURAL REASONING 1
Procedural Reasoning
Name
Institution

PROCEDURAL REASONING 2
Procedural Reasoning
According to Fleming, 1991 article, procedural reasoning was used by the therapist in thinking
on personal physical ailments and what was a possible solution to the ailments. Using procedural
reasoning, the OT used different methods of getting the appropriate solution to alleviate the
ailments such as hierarchical methods. Using this method, they would think of what the body
was involved, what system had ailments, what organ until they could find the possible problem.
The main objective of this method was to get the personal aspects and disability fit for their
treatment. From Lyons & Crepeau, 2001 procedural reasoning is just the same as the decision-
making process used in medical disciplines. The article elaborates that procedural reasoning
allows OT in identifying problems and solutions. For them to solve the medical problems, they
plan, attend cues and generate various hypotheses.
Both articles accept that procedural reasoning is significant in reflecting on the nature of the
disease and helps in on getting alternatives or possible solutions to the ailments. Fleming, 1991
and Lyons & Crepeau, 2001 use procedural reasoning with various methods of problem-solving
such as conducting hypothesis, hierarchical method, and planning for interventions. However,
Fleming, 1991 prohibits therapist personal interaction with the patients stating that OT was only
bound to discuss observable behavior and relating them to the patients' concern. It suggests that
occupational therapists should stick on their roles of therapeutic and leave personal issues of the
patient to the psychologists. On the contrary in the article Lyons & Crepeau, 2001 personal
interaction with the client is not an issue as this helps ineffective care of the patient. This is
evident in Amy’s case.
The occupational therapists through procedural reasoning can coordinate with the physicians in
determining the appropriate treatment for the patient. They perform hypothesis together and give

PROCEDURAL REASONING 3
appropriate interventions for patient problems (Coviello, & Lockhart-Keene, 2019). Besides,
procedural reasoning makes supervision very easy by giving instructions and procedures to their
workers. The staffs later use the procedures given to identify problems and better interventions
(Tomlinson, 2015). The occupational therapist gives the procedures and occupational therapist
assistants to follow the procedures and give feedback report. This is evident in Amy’s case.
Procedural reasoning is very significant in the occupational therapy profession as it helps them to
think critically of the patient disease or disability and decide on the appropriate treatment for
body performance. OT through procedural reasons they can concentrate on patient recovery by
using various methods and hypotheses.

PROCEDURAL REASONING 4
References
Coviello, J., Potvin, M., & Lockhart-Keene, L. (2019). Occupational Therapy Assistant Students’
Perspectives About the Development of Clinical Reasoning. The Open Journal Of
Occupational Therapy, 7(2). DOI: 10.15453/2168-6408.1533
Fleming, M. (1991). The Therapist with the Three-Track Mind. American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 45(11), 1007-1014. DOI: 10.5014/ajot.45.11.1007
Lyons, K., & Crepeau, E. (2001). The Clinical Reasoning of an Occupational Therapy
Assistant. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(5), 577-581. DOI:
10.5014/ajot.55.5.577
Tomlinson, J. (2015). Using clinical supervision to improve the quality and safety of patient
care: a response to Berwick and Francis. BMC Medical Education, 15(1). doi:
10.1186/s12909-015-0324-3