OT Evaluation Note: Templates, Examples & How to Write One
Dr. Medeline Yost
Chief Medical Officer, Augustun
Published July 4, 2026
Updated July 4, 2026
On this page
The initial evaluation is the foundation of every occupational therapy episode of care. It tells insurers why the patient needs OT, sets the goals the patient will work toward, and lays out the plan. It is also the note that gets audited more than any other. If the evaluation is weak, claims get denied and continued care gets questioned.
Writing a strong evaluation does not mean writing a long one. It means covering every required section, connecting objective findings to real functional problems, and setting goals that are clear enough to measure. This guide walks through the full structure, gives you three complete evaluation examples across practice settings, and covers re-evaluations and CPT coding so you can bill correctly.
If you are looking for a broader overview of all OT note types, start with our OT documentation guide. This post goes deep on the evaluation and re-evaluation specifically.
What Is an OT Evaluation Note?
An OT evaluation note is the first formal document you create when a patient begins occupational therapy. It captures who the patient is, what they can and cannot do, and what you plan to work on together. Unlike a daily SOAP note — which records a single treatment session — the evaluation tells the whole story at once.
A complete evaluation includes four big pieces: the occupational profile (the patient's background, roles, and concerns), the analysis of occupational performance (your clinical reasoning about what is limiting function), the goals (what the patient will achieve), and the plan of care (how you will get there). Every section matters. Insurers look for each one, and missing any piece is one of the top reasons claims are denied.
Think of the evaluation as a contract between you, the patient, and the payer. It says: here is the problem, here is the evidence, and here is the plan. Everything you document after this note — daily SOAP notes, progress notes, and the discharge summary — should trace back to what you wrote here.
Structure of an OT Initial Evaluation
Most facilities use their own templates, but the core sections are the same everywhere. Here is the structure you should follow, regardless of setting or EHR.
- 1Identifying information — Patient name, age, date of birth, diagnosis or ICD-10 code, referral source, and date of evaluation.
- 2Occupational profile — Prior level of function, living situation (alone, with spouse, assisted living), work or school roles, daily routines, and the patient's stated concerns or goals.
- 3Medical and surgical history — Relevant diagnoses, surgeries, medications, precautions, and contraindications. Include only what affects your treatment plan.
- 4Objective findings — Range of motion (ROM), manual muscle testing (MMT), sensation, cognition, vision, functional performance on standardized tests, and any outcome measures you administered.
- 5Analysis of occupational performance — This is your clinical reasoning. Connect the objective findings to the functional deficits. Explain why the patient cannot do what they need to do.
- 6Goals — Long-term and short-term goals in SMART format. Goals should be functional and measurable.
- 7Plan of care — Frequency and duration, planned interventions, equipment or adaptive devices, caregiver training needs, and discharge criteria.
Every section should be concise but complete. The goal is to give any therapist — or any auditor — enough information to understand the patient's situation without having to call you.
How to Write SMART Goals for OT
SMART goals are the standard in occupational therapy. They make your goals clear enough that anyone reading the chart can tell whether the patient met them. If a goal is vague, it is hard to measure — and if you cannot measure it, insurers may say the patient did not make progress.
SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Here is a quick breakdown.
| Component | Question It Answers | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Specific | What exactly will the patient do? | Don an overhead shirt independently |
| Measurable | How will you know they did it? | Within 3 minutes, 4 out of 5 trials |
| Achievable | Is this realistic given their status? | Based on current assist level and prognosis |
| Relevant | Does it connect to a functional need? | Patient needs to dress for return to work |
| Time-bound | By when? | By 8 weeks (end of plan of care) |
Below are six example SMART goals from different practice settings. Notice that every goal names the task, the level of assistance, and the timeframe.
- 1Adult outpatient: By 8 weeks, patient will independently don an overhead shirt within 3 minutes without adaptive equipment in 4 out of 5 trials.
- 2Pediatric: By 12 weeks, child will cut a 6-inch straight line with scissors within 1/4 inch accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials.
- 3SNF: By discharge (est. 2 weeks), patient will complete toilet transfer with standby assist using a grab bar in 5 out of 5 trials.
- 4Home health: By 30 days, patient will independently prepare a simple cold meal using adaptive utensils with no more than 1 verbal cue.
- 5Hand therapy: By 6 weeks, patient will achieve composite fist grip strength of 25 lbs (currently 12 lbs) as measured by dynamometer.
- 6School-based: By end of IEP year, student will write first and last name legibly on grade-level lined paper in 4 out of 5 trials.
CPT Codes for OT Evaluations
Choosing the right CPT code for your evaluation is important for correct reimbursement and compliance. The code you pick should match the complexity of your clinical decision-making, not just how long the session lasted.
| CPT Code | Description | Complexity Level | Typical Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 97165 | OT evaluation, low complexity | Low | 1–2 performance deficits, straightforward clinical reasoning, no significant comorbidities |
| 97166 | OT evaluation, moderate complexity | Moderate | 3–4 performance deficits, moderate clinical reasoning, some comorbidities affecting treatment |
| 97167 | OT evaluation, high complexity | High | 5+ performance deficits, complex reasoning, multiple comorbidities, significant barriers to function |
| 97168 | OT re-evaluation | Varies | Reassessment of an established plan of care — updated measurements, goal revision, continued-care justification |
The key factors that determine complexity are: (1) the number of occupational performance deficits, (2) the amount of clinical decision-making required, and (3) the presence of comorbidities that complicate the plan of care. Document all three clearly in your note so the code you bill is supported.
A common mistake is defaulting to 97167 for every evaluation. If the patient has a simple, isolated problem — like a single tendon repair with no other medical history — a low-complexity code (97165) is appropriate and honest. Upcoding puts your practice at risk during audits.
3 OT Evaluation Note Examples
Below are three full evaluation note examples from different practice settings. Each one follows the structure outlined above. Use these as templates and adjust the details for your patients.
Example 1: Adult Outpatient — Hand Therapy (Carpal Tunnel Release)
OT Initial Evaluation — Carpal Tunnel Release
- Patient Information
- Name: J.M. | Age: 38 | Sex: Female | DOB: 03/15/1988 | Diagnosis: Status post right carpal tunnel release (ICD-10: G56.01) | Referral: Dr. A. Singh, Orthopedic Surgery | Date of Eval: 07/01/2026 | Dominance: Right | Occupation: Office administrator
- Occupational Profile
- Patient is a right-hand-dominant office administrator who underwent right carpal tunnel release 2 weeks ago. She reports difficulty typing, using a computer mouse, opening jars, and gripping objects. She lives with her spouse and has no other caregiving responsibilities. Prior to surgery she was independent in all ADLs and IADLs. Her primary goal is to return to full-time desk work within 6 weeks. She rates her current pain at 4/10 at rest and 6/10 with activity.
- Objective Findings
- Right wrist AROM: flexion 42° (norm 80°), extension 35° (norm 70°), radial deviation 12° (norm 20°), ulnar deviation 18° (norm 30°). Digit AROM: composite fist limited by 15° extension lag at PIP joints of digits 2–4. Grip strength (Jamar, position 2): right 12 lbs, left 68 lbs. Lateral pinch: right 4 lbs, left 14 lbs. Scar: 3 cm palmar incision, well-healed, moderate adhesion to underlying tissue, hypersensitive to light touch. Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing: diminished light touch (3.61) in median nerve distribution. Edema: mild fusiform swelling digits 2–3. Phalen's and Tinel's deferred per surgical protocol. Functional testing: unable to type for more than 2 minutes before pain onset, unable to open a jar or water bottle, difficulty with buttons on blouse.
- Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
- Patient presents with decreased ROM, grip and pinch strength, scar adhesion, and residual median nerve sensory changes following right carpal tunnel release. These deficits directly limit her ability to perform fine motor tasks required for her job (typing, mouse use) and daily self-care (buttons, jar opening). Prognosis is good given her age, motivation, and surgical outcome. Skilled OT is required to restore hand function and support return to work. CPT code: 97166 (moderate complexity — 3 performance deficits, moderate clinical reasoning, no significant comorbidities).
- Goals
- STG 1 (4 weeks): Patient will achieve right wrist AROM of 60° flexion and 55° extension. STG 2 (4 weeks): Patient will achieve right grip strength of 25 lbs as measured by Jamar dynamometer. STG 3 (4 weeks): Patient will independently button a blouse using both hands within 2 minutes. LTG 1 (6 weeks): Patient will type continuously for 30 minutes without pain greater than 2/10. LTG 2 (6 weeks): Patient will return to full work duties with no activity restrictions.
- Plan of Care
- Frequency: 2x/week for 6 weeks (12 visits). Interventions: scar mobilization and desensitization, AROM and PROM exercises, progressive grip and pinch strengthening, functional task training (typing, simulated work tasks), patient education on home exercise program and activity modification. Modalities: paraffin wax and ultrasound as indicated for tissue extensibility. Discharge criteria: meeting all LTGs or physician clearance to return to work without restrictions.
Example 2: Pediatric Clinic — Fine Motor and Visual Motor Delay
OT Initial Evaluation — Pediatric Fine Motor Delay
- Patient Information
- Name: L.T. | Age: 5 years 3 months | Sex: Male | DOB: 04/02/2021 | Diagnosis: Fine motor and visual motor delay (ICD-10: F82) | Referral: Dr. R. Patel, Pediatrics | Date of Eval: 07/02/2026 | Dominance: Right (emerging) | Grade: Pre-K, entering Kindergarten in August
- Occupational Profile
- L.T. was referred by his pediatrician after his preschool teacher reported concerns about pencil grasp, cutting, and letter formation. His mother reports he avoids coloring and drawing activities at home and becomes frustrated when asked to write his name. He is independent in most self-care tasks but needs help with buttons, zippers, and tying shoes. He lives with both parents and one younger sibling. No prior OT services. Birth history unremarkable. No significant medical history.
- Objective Findings
- Beery VMI (6th edition): Standard score 78 (7th percentile), age equivalent 3 years 10 months. VMI Visual Perception supplemental: standard score 88 (21st percentile). VMI Motor Coordination supplemental: standard score 74 (4th percentile). BOT-2 Fine Motor Composite: standard score 32 (5th percentile). Fine motor precision: scaled score 8. Fine motor integration: scaled score 6. Manual dexterity: scaled score 9. Grasp pattern: static quadrupod grasp on crayon, transitions to digital pronate on smaller writing tools. Scissors: uses a pronated grasp, cannot cut along a straight line — deviates more than 1 inch from the line. Pre-writing: copies a vertical line, horizontal line, and circle. Unable to copy a cross, square, or diagonal line. In-hand manipulation: difficulty with translation and rotation of small objects (pegs, coins). Bilateral coordination: adequate for age. Sensory: no sensory processing concerns reported by parent or observed.
- Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
- L.T. presents with delays in fine motor precision, visual motor integration, and in-hand manipulation. These deficits affect his ability to perform age-appropriate pre-writing tasks, use scissors, and manage fasteners — all skills required for kindergarten readiness. His visual perception is a relative strength, which supports a good prognosis with targeted fine motor intervention. Skilled OT is needed to develop the motor components required for school participation. CPT code: 97166 (moderate complexity — 3 performance deficits, moderate clinical reasoning, developmental considerations).
- Goals
- STG 1 (6 weeks): L.T. will cut a 6-inch straight line with scissors within 1/4 inch accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials. STG 2 (6 weeks): L.T. will copy a cross and a square from a model with recognizable form in 4 out of 5 trials. STG 3 (6 weeks): L.T. will independently fasten 3 buttons on a button board within 2 minutes. LTG 1 (12 weeks): L.T. will write his first name legibly on lined paper using an appropriate tripod grasp in 4 out of 5 trials. LTG 2 (12 weeks): L.T. will achieve a Beery VMI standard score of 85 or above on re-assessment.
- Plan of Care
- Frequency: 1x/week for 12 weeks (12 visits). Interventions: fine motor strengthening activities (putty, clothespin games, bead stringing), grasp development and pencil grip training, pre-writing and letter formation practice, scissor skill progression, in-hand manipulation activities, parent education and home activity program. Discharge criteria: meeting all LTGs or achieving age-appropriate scores on standardized testing.
Example 3: Home Health — Post-Stroke
OT Initial Evaluation — Post-Stroke Home Health
- Patient Information
- Name: R.H. | Age: 71 | Sex: Male | DOB: 09/22/1954 | Diagnosis: Right CVA with left hemiparesis (ICD-10: I63.9, G81.94) | Referral: Dr. K. Fernandez, PM&R | Date of Eval: 07/03/2026 | Dominance: Right | Discharge from inpatient rehab: 06/28/2026
- Occupational Profile
- R.H. is a 71-year-old retired machinist who sustained a right CVA 3 weeks ago. He was discharged from inpatient rehab 5 days ago and lives with his wife in a single-story home. Prior to the stroke he was fully independent in all ADLs and IADLs, drove independently, and managed his own finances. He currently requires moderate assist for lower body dressing and bathing. His wife provides all meal preparation. He reports frustration with his left arm and says he wants to be able to shower and dress himself again. Medical history: hypertension, type 2 diabetes (well-controlled), hyperlipidemia. Medications: lisinopril, metformin, atorvastatin, aspirin 81 mg.
- Objective Findings
- Left UE AROM: shoulder flexion 78° (norm 180°), shoulder abduction 65° (norm 180°), elbow flexion 110° (norm 150°), wrist extension 15° (norm 70°). Left UE MMT: shoulder flexion 3/5, shoulder abduction 2+/5, elbow flexion 3+/5, wrist extension 2/5, grip 3/5. Right UE: WFL throughout. Sensation: decreased light touch and proprioception left hand and forearm. Modified Ashworth Scale: 1+ left wrist flexors, 1 left elbow flexors. Berg Balance Scale: 34/56 (moderate fall risk). FIM Scores: bathing 3 (moderate assist), upper body dressing 5 (supervision), lower body dressing 3 (moderate assist), grooming 5 (supervision), toileting 4 (minimal assist), feeding 6 (modified independent using right hand). Home environment: bathroom has a tub-shower combination with no grab bars, step-over height 16 inches. Kitchen counters are accessible, but upper cabinets are out of reach for left-side items. Throw rugs present in hallway and bedroom (fall hazard). Patient uses a quad cane for ambulation.
- Assessment & Clinical Reasoning
- R.H. presents with left UE weakness, decreased ROM, impaired sensation, and mild spasticity following right CVA. These deficits significantly limit his ability to bathe, dress his lower body, and prepare meals independently. His home environment presents additional safety risks including lack of bathroom grab bars, high tub step-over, and unsecured throw rugs. His right UE dominance and strong motivation are positive prognostic indicators. Skilled OT is needed to improve left UE function, train compensatory strategies, modify the home for safety, and restore independence in ADLs. CPT code: 97167 (high complexity — 5+ performance deficits, complex clinical reasoning, multiple comorbidities, home safety barriers).
- Goals
- STG 1 (2 weeks): Patient will complete upper body dressing independently using one-handed techniques in 4 out of 5 sessions. STG 2 (2 weeks): Patient will complete toilet transfer with standby assist using grab bar (once installed). STG 3 (2 weeks): Patient will achieve left shoulder AROM of 100° flexion and 90° abduction. LTG 1 (4 weeks): Patient will bathe independently using a tub bench and handheld shower with grab bars installed. LTG 2 (4 weeks): Patient will prepare a simple cold meal independently using adaptive utensils and one-handed techniques. LTG 3 (4 weeks): Patient will complete lower body dressing independently using a reacher, sock aid, and long-handled shoehorn.
- Plan of Care
- Frequency: 3x/week for 4 weeks, then reassess (12 visits). Interventions: left UE AROM and strengthening, ADL retraining with compensatory strategies, one-handed dressing and bathing techniques, home modification recommendations (grab bars, tub bench, removal of throw rugs, long-handled reacher), adaptive equipment training, caregiver education for wife. Discharge criteria: meeting all LTGs, home modifications completed, patient and wife independent with HEP and safety strategies.
OT Re-Evaluation Notes
A re-evaluation is not the same as a progress note. It is a formal reassessment of the patient's status that leads to a decision: continue, modify, or end the plan of care. Medicare requires a re-evaluation at least every 30 calendar days or every 10 treatment visits, whichever comes first. Many private payers follow similar rules.
Your re-evaluation should include updated objective measurements (re-test any standardized assessments you used initially), a status report on each goal (met, partially met, not met, or revised), clinical justification for continued treatment or discharge, and any changes to the plan of care. Bill re-evaluations under CPT 97168.
Here is a brief re-evaluation example for the hand therapy patient from Example 1 above.
OT Re-Evaluation — Carpal Tunnel Release (Visit 8 of 12)
- Updated Objective Findings
- Right wrist AROM: flexion 62° (was 42°), extension 52° (was 35°). Grip strength: right 28 lbs (was 12 lbs), left 68 lbs. Lateral pinch: right 9 lbs (was 4 lbs). Scar: soft, mobile, no adhesion. Sensation: light touch intact in median nerve distribution (was diminished). Patient reports pain 1/10 at rest, 3/10 with activity (was 4/10 and 6/10). Typing tolerance: 18 minutes continuous (was 2 minutes).
- Goal Status
- STG 1 (wrist AROM 60° flex / 55° ext): MET — exceeded flexion target. STG 2 (grip strength 25 lbs): MET — currently at 28 lbs. STG 3 (button blouse within 2 min): MET — completes in 1 minute 20 seconds. LTG 1 (type 30 min without pain >2/10): IN PROGRESS — currently at 18 minutes, pain 3/10. LTG 2 (return to full work duties): IN PROGRESS — working half days, employer accommodating.
- Clinical Justification
- Patient has made significant progress toward all goals. All short-term goals are met. Long-term goals for sustained typing and full return to work are in progress with a positive trajectory. Continued skilled OT is required to progress grip endurance, typing tolerance, and work simulation tasks. Anticipated discharge in 4 remaining visits.
- Updated Plan
- Continue 2x/week for 2 weeks (4 visits). Focus on grip and pinch endurance, sustained typing and mouse tasks, work simulation, and discharge planning including home exercise program for continued strengthening.
Common Evaluation Documentation Mistakes
Even experienced therapists make documentation errors that can lead to claim denials or audit problems. Here are the most common mistakes to avoid in your evaluation notes.
- 1Vague goals — "Patient will improve hand function" is not measurable. Every goal needs a specific task, a measurable standard, and a timeframe.
- 2Missing prior level of function — If you do not document what the patient could do before the injury or illness, the insurer has no baseline to measure progress against.
- 3No functional connection — Listing ROM and strength numbers without explaining how those deficits affect daily activities. Always bridge the gap between impairments and function.
- 4Wrong CPT complexity level — Billing 97167 for a straightforward evaluation invites audit scrutiny. Match the code to the actual complexity of clinical decision-making.
- 5Forgetting to document medical necessity — The evaluation must clearly state why skilled OT services are needed. If it reads like the patient could do a home program on their own, the claim will be denied.
Let an AI Scribe Handle the Note
Writing a thorough evaluation note can take 30 minutes or more after the session is over. Augustun for occupational therapy listens to your evaluation session in real time and drafts a complete, structured note — occupational profile, objective findings, goals, and plan of care — before the patient leaves the room. You review, edit, and sign. It works with over 400 EHR systems and is fully HIPAA and GDPR compliant. Recordings are never stored. You keep full control of the final note.
AI-Powered · HIPAA-Ready
Write OT Evaluations in Minutes, Not Hours
Augustun listens to your evaluation session and drafts the full note — occupational profile, findings, goals, and plan. HIPAA/GDPR compliant, 400+ EHR integrations, and recordings are never stored. Try it free today.
No credit card required.
Private by Design
Augustun is HIPAA and GDPR compliant. Audio recordings are never stored — they are processed in real time and discarded. Your patient data stays yours.
Final Thoughts
A strong OT evaluation note does three things: it justifies the need for skilled care, it gives the patient a clear path forward, and it protects your practice from claim denials and audits. Take the time to document every section — occupational profile, objective findings, clinical reasoning, SMART goals, and plan of care. Use the right CPT code for the complexity of the case.
Once the evaluation is done, the documentation lifecycle continues with daily treatment notes, progress notes, and eventually a discharge summary. For a complete walkthrough of those note types, read our guide on OT progress notes and discharge.
Frequently asked questions
What CPT code do I use for an OT evaluation?
Use 97165 for low complexity, 97166 for moderate complexity, or 97167 for high complexity. The code depends on the number of performance deficits, the level of clinical decision-making, and the presence of comorbidities. Re-evaluations are billed under 97168.
How long should an OT evaluation note be?
There is no required length. Focus on covering every section — occupational profile, objective findings, clinical reasoning, goals, and plan of care. Most thorough evaluations are 1 to 2 pages. A note that is too short may miss required elements, but a note that is too long may contain unnecessary information that dilutes the key points.
What is the difference between an OT evaluation and a re-evaluation?
An evaluation is the initial assessment at the start of care. A re-evaluation is a formal reassessment done during the episode of care — typically every 30 days or 10 visits for Medicare — to update measurements, review goal status, and justify continued treatment or discharge.
How do I write measurable OT goals?
Use the SMART format: Specific (name the task), Measurable (set a clear standard like number of trials or a time limit), Achievable (realistic given the patient's status), Relevant (connected to a functional need), and Time-bound (by a specific date or number of weeks). For example: By 6 weeks, patient will independently don an overhead shirt within 3 minutes in 4 out of 5 trials.
Can an AI scribe help with OT evaluations?
Yes. An ambient AI scribe like Augustun listens to your evaluation session and drafts the full note in real time — including the occupational profile, objective findings, goals, and plan of care. You review and edit the note before signing. This can save 20 to 30 minutes per evaluation.
AI-Powered · HIPAA-Ready
Spend more time with patients, not paperwork.
Augustun transforms ambient speech into accurate notes — finished before your next session.
No credit card required.

Dr. Medeline Yost
Chief Medical Officer, Augustun
Dr. Medeline Yost is an Internal Medicine physician and an emerging leader in clinical innovation. As Chief Medical Officer at Augustun, she helps shape AI-powered tools that streamline clinical documentation and support physicians in delivering higher-quality care. Her professional interests include medical education, workflow redesign, and the responsible use of AI in healthcare — building systems that let clinicians spend more time with patients and less on administrative tasks.