著者

田島 明子 阿部 邦彦

雑誌

リハビリテーション科学ジャーナル = Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences Seirei Christopher University

巻号頁・発行日

vol.10, pp.37-45, 2015-03-31

---

本研究では作業療法の実践理論や評価方法とパーソンセンタードケア(PCC)と認知症ケアマッピング(DCM)の比較検討を通して,作業療法におけるPCC,DCM の適用可能性について考察した.作業療法の実践理論と評価方法については人間作業モデル(MOHO)と運動とプロセス技能の評価(AMPS)を採用した.① MOHO とPCC は,「対象」「個人の意志」「自己の同一性」「能力への着目」「人間理解の方法」「倫理的観点」に着眼し,② AMPS とDCM は,「対象」「目的」「評価内容」「評価ポイント」「活用者」「活用方法」に着眼して比較検討した.本研究の結果,①については,「個人の意志」をMOHO は個人の文脈を重視する一方でPCC は心理的ニーズをあらかじめ想定していること,「社会倫理的観点」をMOHO は持たないがPCC は持っている等の相違点が明らかになった.②については,特に「活用方法」について,AMPS では作業遂行能力の向上のための客観的エビデンスとして活用できるのに対し,DCM はPCC の視点に基づいてケアスタッフ間で合意したエビデンスを活用できる特性の違いが見出された. In this study, we discussed the applicability of person-centred care (PCC) and dementia care mapping (DCM) in occupational therapy by comparing the theory of occupational therapy and its method of evaluation with PCC and DCM. We adopted the Model of Human Occupation (MOHO) as the theory of occupational therapy practice, and used the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) for the evaluation. 1) MOHO and PCC focused on "object," "individual will," "self- identity," "client's ability," "human understanding," and "ethics." 2) AMPS and DCM focused on "object," "purpose," "evaluation contents," "evaluation score," "user," and "utilization." Comparison of results of MOHO and PCC showed that MOHO emphasizes the individual context while PCC pre-supposes the psychological needs of the individual and includes "social and ethical viewpoints", while MOHO does not. Results of comparison of AMPS and DCM indicated that AMPS was able to employ "utilization" as objective evidence for the improvement in occupational ability, while DCM was able to use the evidence agreed upon among staff, based on PCC viewpoints.