Skip Navigation


Age and Ageing Advance Access originally published online on November 3, 2004
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/1/41    most recent
afh230v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stewart, S.
Right arrow Articles by Flood, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stewart, S.
Right arrow Articles by Flood, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Age and Ageing Vol. 34 No. 1 © British Geriatrics Society 2004; all rights reserved

Research Paper

Are occupational therapists more effective than social workers when assessing frail older people? Results of CAMELOT, a randomised controlled trial

Sandra Stewart1, Ian Harvey2, Fiona Poland1, Walter Lloyd-Smith3, Miranda Mugford2 and Chris Flood4

1 School of Allied Health Professions, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
2 School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
3 Great Yarmouth Primary Care Trust, Ferryside, High Road, Great Yarmouth NR31 0PH, UK
4 St Bartholomew School of Nursing and Midwifery, City University, Philpot Street, London E1 2EA, UK

Address correspondence to: S. Stewart. Fax: (+44) 01603 593166. Email: s.e.stewart{at}uea.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives: to compare the effectiveness of occupational therapist-led assessments of older people on dependency and service costs with that of social worker-led assessments.

Design: pragmatic community-based randomised controlled trial over 2 years 4 months.

Setting: Cambridgeshire, UK.

Participants: 321 older people aged 65 and over living in their own homes and 113 carers.

Intervention: participants were randomised to two groups, to receive either occupational therapist-led or social worker-led assessment.

Outcome measures: primary outcome was dependency (Community Dependency Index). Secondary outcomes included quality of life scores (EQ-5D) and psychological outlook (Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)). Outcome measures for carers included Carer Assessment of Difficulty Index (CADI), PSS and EQ-5D, collected at baseline, 4 and 8 months. Resource use data were collected from professional practice records, participants and carers at final follow-up.

Results: 264 (82%) of the randomised participants completed the study. No between-group statistically significant differences were found, except that carers in the occupational therapist arm had significantly better EQ-5D scores at the 8 month follow-up (thermometer P = 0.03) and in the social worker arm better CADI scores on stress (P = 0.047) and amount of caring (P = 0.049).

Conclusions: there was no clear difference in patient-centred effectiveness measures between occupational therapists and social workers in assessing frail older people and their carers in the community. More extensive use of primary care health services by occupational therapists may have contributed to the differences in EQ-5D scores for carers. Delays in making occupational therapy assessments and in completing recommended housing adaptations may have contributed to these negative findings.

Received October 21, 2003; accepted in revised form August 6, 2004.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.