Neurologists dealing with sickness certification: Experiences of problems and need of competence

Clinical Work-Integrating Care in Current Practice: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Clinical work-integrating care (CWIC) refers to paying attention to work participation in a clinical setting. Working patients may benefit from CWIC. The purpose of this study is to explore the extent and nature to which medical specialists provide CWIC and what policies and guidelines oblige or recommend specialists to do.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for studies on the extent and nature of CWIC and supplemented by gray literature on policies and guidelines. Six main categories were defined a priori. Applying a meta-aggregative approach, subcategories were subsequently defined using qualitative data. Next, quantitative findings were integrated into these subcategories. A separate narrative of policies and guidelines using the same main categories was constructed.

RESULTS

In total, 70 studies and 55 gray literature documents were included. The main findings per category were as follows: (1) collecting data on the occupation of patients varied widely; (2) most specialists did not routinely discuss work, but recent studies showed an increasing tendency to do so, which corresponds to recent policies and guidelines; (3) work-related advice ranged from general advice to patient-physician collaboration about work-related decisions; (4) CWIC was driven by legislation in many countries; (5) specialists sometimes collaborated in multidisciplinary teams to provide CWIC; and (6) medical guidelines regarding CWIC were generally not available.

CONCLUSION

Medical specialists provide a wide variety of CWIC ranging from assessing a patient's occupation to extensive collaboration with patients and other professionals to support work participation. Lack of medical guidelines could explain the variety of these practices.

WL, J. L. H, K. A, E. F. Interventions regarding physicians' sickness certification practice - a systematic literature review with meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

A variety of interventions aiming to influence physicians' sickness certification practice have been conducted, most are, however, not evaluated scientifically. The aim of this systematic literature review was to obtain updated knowledge about interventions regarding physicians' sickness certification practice and to summarize their possible effects, in terms of sickness absence (SA) or return to work (RTW) among patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Web of Science up through 15 June 2020 and selected peer-reviewed studies that reported effects of controlled interventions that aimed to improve physicians' sickness certification practice and used SA or RTW among patients as outcome measures. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effect models.

RESULTS

Of the 1399 identified publications, 12 studies covering 9 interventions were assessed as relevant and included in the review. Most (70%) were from the Netherlands, two had a controlled, and seven a randomized controlled study design. All interventions included some type of training of physicians, and two interventions also included IT-support. Regarding the outcomes of SA/RTW, 30 different effect measures were used. In the meta-analyses, no statistically significant effect in favor of the interventions was observed for having any RTW (i.e. first, partial, or full) nor full RTW.

CONCLUSIONS

The individual studies showed that physicians' sickness certification practice might be influenced by interventions in both the intended and non-intended direction, however, no statistically significant effect was indicated by the meta-analysis. The included studies varied considerably concerning intervention content and effect measures.KEY POINTSThe knowledge is very limited regarding the content of interventions directed to physician's sickness certification practiceThe identified interventions included some type of training of physicians, and some of them also included IT-support for physiciansThere was a great heterogeneity among the interventions concerning effect measures used regarding return to work among patientsThe individual studies showed that physicians' sickness certification practice might be influenced by interventions in both intended and non-intended directions, however, the overall meta-analysis did not indicate an effect.

Oncologists' experiences of and prerequisites for sickness certification tasks: A nationwide questionnaire study

Oncologists frequently have sickness certification (SC) consultations, however, little is known about their experiences of such tasks.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate oncologists' experiences of organisational prerequisites for SC tasks, and if lack of resources was related to experiencing SC as problematic.

METHOD

Questionnaire data from 342 oncologists in Sweden were used for descriptive statistics and to calculate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

The majority (92.2%) had SC consultations weekly; 17.8% of the oncologists experienced such consultations as problematic weekly. About a third appreciated the national guidelines for SC (34.5%) and had joint routines/policies regarding SC at their clinic (29.7%). Experiencing SC consultations as problematic was associated with stating not having enough resources for such work (OR 3.47; 95% CI 1.92-6.25). Lack of resources was associated with: experiencing lack of competence in insurance medicine (3.34; 1.92-5.82), conflicts with patients regarding SC (4.22; 1.96-9.07), finding it problematic to manage the two roles as medical expert and as the patient's treating physician (3.31; 2.04-5.34), or to assess work capacity (2.28; 1.46-3.56).

CONCLUSION

Although oncologists often had SC tasks, most did not experience them as problematic weekly. However, lack of resources for SC tasks was associated with experiencing SC as problematic.

Neurologists dealing with sickness certification: Experiences of problems and need of competence

RATIONALE AND AIMS

Most studies on physicians' sickness certification practices include general practitioners (GP) while there hardly is any knowledge on this regarding neurologists although neurological diseases often involve work incapacity and need of sick leave.

AIM

The aim was to describe experiences among neurologists in Sweden concerning their work with sickness certification of patients.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study of 265 neurologists' responses in a nationwide survey regarding their work with sickness certification of patients was conducted.

RESULTS

The majority (81.5%) had sickness certification consultations at least once a week and a third experienced problems every week in handling sickness certification. Among the 251 who at least sometimes had sickness certification consultations, the following two aspects were experienced as very or fairly problematic: "assess the degree to which the reduced functional capacity limits a patient's capacity to perform his/her work assignments" (67.3%) and "make a long-term prognosis about the future work capacity of patients on sick leave" (60.5%). At least once a week, 78.7% experienced lack of time regarding managing patient-related aspects of the sickness certification task. Moreover, 21.8% considered sickness certification to be a work environmental problem, at least once a week. In all, 84% stated that they had a large or fairly large need for more competence concerning sickness certification tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

Sickness certification is a common task among neurologists, involving several problematic aspects related to, e.g., lack of competence in assessing function and work capacity and of time. There is a need for improvement.