Motion or amendment: Support for Occupational Therapists

Motion or amendment by Ms Paula Bradshaw on 4 November 2024.

MLA: Ms Paula Bradshaw
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 4 November 2024
Type: Motion or amendment
Business: Motion · Private Members' Motion
Heading: Support for Occupational Therapists
Assembly identifier: Document 416288

Read the official Assembly record Open Data source

Text

Support for Occupational Therapists
That this Assembly acknowledges Occupational Therapy Week 2024, from 4 to 10 November 2024; recognises the invaluable contribution made by occupational therapists in delivering holistic, person-centred care in all areas of the health and social care system, including improving hospital discharge and services within acute care, primary care, housing, education, justice and mental health settings; believes that occupational therapists have a key role to play in the prevention and early intervention agenda, as well as supporting citizens through their rehabilitation journey and working with people in the community; and calls on the Department of Health to examine workforce planning for occupational therapists to ensure this workforce is supported, sustainable and fit for the future.

118 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Also tabled by

Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.85).
No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.02	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.01	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.01	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.01	No
Controversy escalation	0.02	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.85	Yes
Overall judgement	0.02	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	1.00
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.00

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits	0.53
No identity-related subject	0.47
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:58 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification