Seeds Occupational Therapy
CPD Self-Directed Learning · Reflection Log
The Seeds OT Model
CPD Reflection Log
Structured reflection questions for all five parts of the Seeds OT Model series. Complete each section after reading the corresponding part. Retain this log as evidence for your AHPRA CPD portfolio.
AHPRA registration number
Employer / practice setting
Seeds Occupational Therapy · seedsoccupationaltherapy.com.au · The Seeds OT Model CPD Module · Self-directed learning, 10 hours
This section introduces the clinical moment the model was built for — complex cases where existing frameworks are useful but not sufficient, where several partial explanations are true simultaneously, and where the picture keeps moving. It introduces the shift from certainty-seeking to orientation.
Reflection questions
Think of a case you are currently working with that fits the description in the introduction — genuinely complex, uncertain or difficult to explain with one framework alone. What makes it hard to hold?
Where in your clinical work do you feel most pressure to arrive at a clear single explanation? What drives that pressure — the family, the school, a report, your own expectations?
The introduction distinguishes between certainty-seeking and orientation. Which position do you most naturally inhabit under clinical pressure? What does that look like in practice?
Apply to one real clinical example
Briefly describe a current or recent case where the model might be relevant. What is the presenting concern and what makes it complex?
What changed in my thinking?
Time spent on this section
What I will do differently
Part 1 establishes the foundational premise: a child's regulation, participation and wellbeing emerge from many interacting conditions — biological, sensory, relational, occupational, environmental and social. No single factor usually explains the whole picture. Conditions interact bidirectionally and continuously.
Reflection questions
Think of a child or family you have worked with recently. Which of the six condition domains — biology, nervous system, family, school, environment, daily occupation or society — were most obviously shaping the presenting difficulty?
Which domains were you assessing thoroughly in that case — and which were you assessing less rigorously or not at all? What made the difference?
Where did you previously look for a single cause in this case? What wider conditions became visible when you broadened the lens?
Part 1 describes how conditions interact bidirectionally — each shaping the others simultaneously. Identify one example of bidirectional interaction in your clinical example. What was influencing what?
The cumulative load diagram shows that the presenting trigger is rarely the real cause — load has been building for hours or days before the pattern becomes visible. Does this apply to your case? What was building before the visible difficulty appeared?
Apply to one real clinical example
Identify one negative loop in the child's daily life. What conditions were feeding into it — and where might a leverage point exist within that loop?
Describe one positive loop that might be possible for this child if one or two conditions shifted. What would need to change first?
What changed in my thinking after Part 1?
What will I do differently in practice as a result of this part?
Part 2 introduces the central perceptual shift: difficulties are not fixed objects located inside the child, but recurring patterns that emerge under particular conditions. Patterns feel permanent because the same conditions keep recurring. When conditions shift, patterns can reorganise.
Reflection questions
What presenting difficulty in your practice have you been treating — even implicitly — as a fixed object inside the child? What label or category has it been given?
Redescribe that difficulty as a recurring pattern. When does it appear? What conditions are consistently present when it emerges? When is it absent or less intense?
What labels have been applied to this child — by the family, school or other professionals? Have any of those labels begun to function as explanations that stopped further inquiry?
Part 2 describes identity crystallisation — how repeated patterns become absorbed as fixed traits. Is there evidence of this happening in your case? How is the child describing themselves? How are adults describing them?
What changes clinically when you see the difficulty as a conditional pattern rather than a fixed object? What questions become available that were not available before?
Part 2 argues that understanding difficulties as conditional patterns reduces blame. In your case, who has been carrying blame — the child, the parent, the school? How does the pattern view shift that?
Apply to one real clinical example
Using the circular loop diagram from Part 2, map one self-sustaining loop in your clinical example. Where within that loop might the pattern be most usefully interrupted?
What changed in my thinking after Part 2?
What will I do differently in practice?
Part 3 explains the intervention logic: the visible problem is where the pattern becomes obvious — not necessarily where it begins. OT often works upstream from the symptom, identifying and shifting the conditions making the pattern more likely. Leverage points are where change is both accessible and likely to influence the wider system.
Reflection questions
In your clinical example, what is the visible problem — the symptom that is most obvious to the family and school? Where in the day does this become apparent?
Using the upstream flow diagram from Part 3, map what was accumulating in the hours before the visible difficulty appeared. What conditions were gathering?
Has your intervention so far been primarily focused on the visible symptom — or on the conditions surrounding it? What has worked and what has not?
Part 3 introduces the idea that sometimes the most useful leverage point is not the child — it is a condition in the environment, the routine, the school or the caregiver. Is this true in your case? Where outside the child might the most useful change be possible?
Using the directionality concept from Part 3: for each condition you are considering addressing, ask — is this moving the child toward regulation and participation, or toward strain and overload? What does that tell you about intervention priority?
Part 3 states: "Some conditions can be changed. Some can be accommodated. Some must be respected." Apply this to your case. Which category does each condition fall into?
Apply to one real clinical example
Identify your top two leverage points for this case. What is your clinical reasoning for selecting them over others? What will you trial first and what will you watch for?
What changed in my thinking after Part 3?
What will I do differently in practice?
Part 4 focuses on the clinician's development. Clinical maturity is not the end of uncertainty — it is learning to stay useful while uncertainty remains. This part introduces premature closure, the complexity spectrum (rigid certainty to paralysis to grounded curiosity), and the therapeutic stance of the mature OT.
Reflection questions
Reflect on a recent case where you felt pressure to arrive at a clear explanation quickly. What drove that pressure? Did it affect what you continued to notice — and what you stopped noticing?
Part 4 describes premature closure — settling on one explanation before the picture has fully come into view. Has this happened in your clinical example? What might you have stopped seeing as a result?
Using the complexity spectrum from Part 4 — rigid certainty, grounded curiosity, paralysis — where do you tend to sit under clinical pressure? What conditions push you toward rigidity? What pushes you toward paralysis?
Part 4 distinguishes the less experienced clinical eye (reaches for a category) from the more experienced one (notices conditions, timing, recurrence). In your current case, are you asking "what is this?" or "what is happening here, when, and under what conditions?" How would your questions change?
Part 4 argues that careful action and genuine uncertainty are not opposites. What is one thing you could do for your clinical example right now — without needing the complete causal picture — that would still move the system in a useful direction?
Using the therapeutic stance diagram from Part 4: which dimensions feel most natural to you? Which feel most challenging — and why?
Apply to one real clinical example
What do you still genuinely not know about your clinical case? List the real uncertainties. Which can you safely hold for now, and which require more assessment?
What changed in my thinking after Part 4?
What will I do differently in practice?
Part 5 consolidates the model as a formal clinical reasoning framework. It defines the three foundational propositions, key terms, the nine-step clinical reasoning sequence, the pattern mapping tool and the OT-specific anchors. It also addresses the honest limits of the model and its theoretical foundations.
Reflection questions — the formal model
State the three foundational propositions of the Seeds OT Model in your own words. What do they mean for how you approach a complex case?
Define the following terms in plain language as you would explain them to a colleague: condition, pattern, loop, leverage point, therapeutic stance.
Work through the nine-step clinical reasoning sequence for your clinical example. Note where you currently have enough information to proceed and where you have gaps.
Complete a brief pattern map for your clinical example using the pattern mapping tool from Part 5. Include: the presenting pattern, key surrounding conditions, one maintaining loop, protective conditions, key fixed versus changeable conditions, and your top leverage point.
Part 5 explains what makes the Seeds OT Model distinctly OT rather than generic systems thinking. In your own words, what does OT uniquely bring to complex case formulation that other disciplines may not?
How would you use this model in a supervision discussion, a progress note, or a report formulation? Write a brief example for one of these contexts using your clinical case.
Putting it all together
Write a concise clinical reasoning summary for your case using the structure from the pattern mapping tool: presenting pattern, maintaining conditions, loops, protective conditions, leverage points, intervention direction.
What changed in my thinking after Part 5?
What is one clinical case you now see differently as a result of working through this model? What has changed in how you understand it?
What assumptions about children, families or clinical work have shifted through engaging with this model?
What conditions were you previously missing or underweighting in your assessments? What will you assess more thoroughly going forward?
What has working through this model revealed about your own clinical reasoning — your tendencies, your blind spots, your relationship to uncertainty?
What is your next clinically reasonable step for the case you have been reflecting on?
What is one thing you will carry from this model into your future practice — beyond this specific case?
How will this CPD module influence your practice in the next three to six months? Be specific about what will change.
What CPD activities would usefully complement this module? Are there supervision conversations, peer discussions, further reading or case studies that would deepen this learning?
Self-Declaration for CPD Portfolio
I declare that I have completed the Seeds OT Model CPD Reflection Log as a self-directed continuing professional development activity. I have engaged with all five parts of the Seeds OT Model series, completed the structured reflection questions with reference to genuine clinical practice, and recorded my learning in this log. I am recording this activity in my CPD portfolio in accordance with AHPRA registration requirements for occupational therapists. The hours recorded reflect my honest assessment of time spent in active engagement with the learning material.
AHPRA registration number