Untitled Flashcard Set

Case 1 — CA Simulation: ASSESSMENT — FULL FEEDBACK

Actual live-practice feedback. Q2–Q3 are intentionally not reconstructed because their exact responses/feedback were not retrievable.

Core reasoning: Referral → context → consent → scope → expectations → child involvement → assess occupational performance → interpret findings → share findings → collaborative goals.

Question 1

Assessor question: You have received this referral for a five-year-old child with developmental delays affecting fine motor skills, self-care, and participation in classroom routines. As the occupational therapist, what would you consider first when entering and initiating this case?

Your answer: First I would check the reason for referral, and check who is the recipient of care, where is the referral from, then I would clarify my role and scope as an OT?

Rating: PARTIAL

What you did well: Referral reason, recipient, referral source, and OT role/scope.

What was missing / What I would strengthen: School context/resources, consent, stakeholder expectations, and pediatric decision-making/child involvement.

Unnecessary / Risky / Needs reframing: Stopping at referral and scope is too narrow.

Stronger CA answer: First, I would review the referral reason/source, clarify the child's and school's concerns, understand the school OT role/resources, confirm consent, clarify parent/teacher expectations, and appropriately involve the child.

What the assessor is testing: Systematic entry into a pediatric school-based case.

Memory cue: Referral → context → consent → scope → expectations → child involvement

Question 4

Assessor question: The mother is focused on improving the child's self-care and making daily routines easier, while the father is more focused on independence and school performance. How would you manage these differing parental expectations?

Your answer: validate each concern without taking sides, shift focus to child's concerns/priorities, link to participation and school performance.

Rating: PARTIAL → STRONG

What you did well: Validated both, remained neutral, focused on the child, linked priorities to participation/school performance.

What was missing / What I would strengthen: Explicitly explore each parent's priorities, identify common goals, use occupational performance findings, and collaboratively establish a shared goal.

Unnecessary / Risky / Needs reframing: Saying only that you would focus on the child does not explain how you manage disagreement.

Stronger CA answer: I would validate both parents' concerns, explore what independence and daily routines mean to each, use the child's priorities/occupational performance/school context to identify common goals, and collaboratively establish shared goals.

What the assessor is testing: Neutrality, empathy, collaboration, child-centred reasoning.

Memory cue: Validate both → explore priorities → common goal → child + occupation + participation

Question 5

Assessor question: What if the parents' priorities differ from the child's?

Your answer: clarify OT scope in school, accountability to child, school OT addresses occupational issues directly affecting participation/performance at school, child voice cannot be ignored, seek consistent home-school program.

Rating: STRONG

What you did well: School OT scope, child voice, school participation, collaboration.

What was missing / What I would strengthen: Balance child voice with parental concerns; home/school strategies can be complementary rather than identical.

Unnecessary / Risky / Needs reframing: Do not make the child the sole decision-maker.

Stronger CA answer: I would acknowledge parents' concerns, explain the school OT role, explore why priorities differ, include the child's perspective in an age-appropriate way, and develop shared goals with complementary strategies across settings.

What the assessor is testing: Balancing child voice, family concerns, and school context.

Memory cue: Child voice + family concerns + school context → shared goal

Question 6

Assessor question: The child says they do not want to practise a self-care task the mother prioritizes. How would you approach this?

Your answer: evaluate concern, don’t confront, explore explanations (attention, self-regulation, slowness, physical/environmental barriers), overcome barriers with child, don’t force if still unwilling.

Rating: STRONG

What you did well: Respected refusal, explored barriers, did not force participation.

What was missing / What I would strengthen: Explore meaningfulness, difficulty/frustration, embarrassment, sensory factors, and understanding of why the task matters.

Unnecessary / Risky / Needs reframing: Do not assume the reason for refusal; do not force the task.

Stronger CA answer: I would respect the response, explore difficulty, frustration, embarrassment, sensory/environmental factors and meaningfulness, identify barriers, and adapt the task/approach rather than force it.

What the assessor is testing: Respect for child perspective and reasoning about refusal.

Memory cue: Respect → understand refusal → identify barrier → adapt → meaningful participation

Question 7

Assessor question: The mother says the self-care skill is important and that if the child does not practise it, the child will not become independent. How would you respond?

Your answer: understand/validate mother, don’t take side, empathy, clarify school OT scope, determine whether self-care affects school participation, if yes explain intervention, if not transparently communicate.

Rating: STRONG

What you did well: Validated mother, remained neutral, empathy, scope, school participation.

What was missing / What I would strengthen: Connect independence to occupational needs and establish a functional goal if school-relevant; consider another resource/setting if outside school scope.

Unnecessary / Risky / Needs reframing: Scope alone is not the reason; occupational relevance is central.

Stronger CA answer: I would validate the concern, explore what independence means to the mother, determine whether it affects school occupational performance/participation, link it to a functional goal if relevant, or explain scope and discuss an appropriate resource if not.

What the assessor is testing: Parent concern → occupational relevance → school participation → shared goal/referral.

Memory cue: Parent concern → occupational relevance → school participation → shared goal/referral

Question 8

Assessor question: The mother wants the child to complete the entire self-care routine independently, but the child can do some steps and needs help with others. How would you approach this?

Your answer: understand mother, clarify school OT scope, explain not teaching entire routine independently if not capable, could overwhelm, use graded activities/goals, assistance then gradually decrease to independence, focus on school-related self-care.

Rating: STRONG

What you did well: Recognized long-term independence, current ability, grading, reduced assistance, school context.

What was missing / What I would strengthen: Do not imply school OT cannot work toward independence when it is relevant.

Unnecessary / Risky / Needs reframing: The statement that you would not teach the entire routine independently is too absolute.

Stronger CA answer: I would acknowledge the long-term independence goal, start from current ability, break the routine into steps, identify assistance, grade the task/support, and reduce assistance as consistent success develops while keeping it relevant to school participation.

What the assessor is testing: Grading and progression toward independence.

Memory cue: Current ability → break into steps → grade support → reduce assistance → independence

Question 9

Assessor question: What measurable goal would you establish for the self-care task?

Your answer: if moderate assistance now, decrease to minimum, then one verbal prompt, then supervision, then independent.

Rating: STRONG

What you did well: Clear progression in assistance.

What was missing / What I would strengthen: Specific task and timeframe were missing.

Unnecessary / Risky / Needs reframing: An assistance hierarchy alone is not a complete SMART goal.

Stronger CA answer: For a specific school self-care task, identify baseline moderate assistance and target minimum assistance/one verbal prompt within a defined timeframe, then monitor and adjust.

What the assessor is testing: Functional measurable goal setting.

Memory cue: Specific task + baseline assistance + target assistance + timeframe

Question 10

Assessor question: How would you determine when it is appropriate to reduce assistance from moderate to minimum?

Your answer: ensure child can independently/currently/safely perform agreed level of task, based on measurable/achievable/specific parts; if independently, safely, correctly perform, decrease assistance.

Rating: STRONG

What you did well: Safety, correctness, measurable criteria, readiness to progress.

What was missing / What I would strengthen: Add consistency/reliability; full independence is not required before reducing support.

Unnecessary / Risky / Needs reframing: Do not require complete independence before reducing support.

Stronger CA answer: Identify observable criteria; confirm safe, correct, consistent performance at the current support level; then gradually reduce assistance and reassess.

What the assessor is testing: Readiness to progress based on observable performance.

Memory cue: Safe + correct + consistent at current level → reduce support → reassess

Q2–Q3 note

Exact Q2–Q3 responses/feedback were not retrievable, so they are not invented.