Image and perception of physicians as barriers to inter-disciplinary cooperation? - the example of German occupational health physicians in the rehabilitation process: a qualitative study

Cooperation between Public Primary Health Care and Occupational Health Care Professionals in Work Ability-Related Health Issues

Work disability creates significant expenses for nations and causes human suffering by limiting patients' lives. International studies show that to enhance recognition of and support for work disability, cooperation, mutual trust, and information exchange between public primary health care and occupational health care must be strengthened. However, little is known of how health care professionals experience this cooperation. The aim of this study was to understand how professionals experience the cooperation between public primary health care and occupational health services regarding patients' work ability. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 health care professionals working in five small cities (<10,000 inhabitants) in Finland. Interviews were audio and video recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed through inductive thematic analysis. Three key themes were identified from the interviews: attitudes toward the other health care sector, the exchange of information, and resources for cooperation. Professionals seem to have poor knowledge about the services available and how care is given in the other sector, appearing to lead to weak mutual trust. The public primary health care professionals especially emphasized the benefits of cooperation, but several issues were mentioned as barriers to cooperation. These results can be used when planning effective patient paths and service provisioning models.

Requirements for an electronic handover system for interprofessional collaboration between psychotherapists and occupational health professionals - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

An electronic handover system provides a potential way to bridge the interface between psychotherapy and occupational health. This qualitative study therefore aimed assessing (1) content-related and (2) functional requirements that psychotherapists and occupational health professionals expect from an electronic handover system to exchange relevant information about their patients with common mental disorders.

METHODS

Five focus groups with psychotherapists and occupational health professionals (occupational physicians and members of company integration management) were conducted via video conference using an interview guide. The focus groups were transcribed and content-analysed using MAXQDA.

RESULTS

With regard to content-related requirements, information that serve to assess employee's ability to work was described as particularly relevant by occupational physicians and members of company integration management (e.g. restrictions in certain work areas or ability to work under time pressure). Psychotherapists indicated that information about the employee's working conditions is particularly relevant. This includes description of work tasks or conflicts at the workplace. Concerning functional requirements, all professional groups attached importance to data security and functions to improve communication and collaboration (e.g. the use of standardised handover forms).

CONCLUSION

This study provides insight into the desired content-related and functional requirements by psychotherapists, occupational physicians and members of company integration management for an electronic handover system. However, the theoretical and practical development of such a system requires several additional steps, such as the involvement of further relevant stakeholders (e.g. patients, software developers).

The role of personalised professional relations across care sectors in achieving high continuity of care

Background

High continuity of care has a positive impact on health outcomes, but insight into the mechanisms underlying this impact is limited. Information continuity, on which our study focuses, is especially important when relational continuity is not given, which is often the case at hospital admission or hospital discharge. The aim of this study is to provide insight into the information flows between general practices and hospitals in Germany, and to identify factors associated with these flows of information.

Methods

This is a qualitative interview study in a purposeful sample of staff from hospitals and general practices (general practitioners, care assistants in general practice, hospital management, hospital physicians, and nursing staff). Interviews were conducted via telephone or face-to-face using a self-developed semi-structured interview guide. Stepwise systematic content analysis was used to structure collected material into themes and sub-themes that related to the study aim. Data was analysed by two researchers in several cycles, alternating between inductive and deductive approaches.

Results

A total of 49 interviews were conducted. Duration of the interviews varies between 21 and 78 min (mean duration 43 min). Across all groups, more than two thirds of participants were female (n = 34, 69%). The analysis highlighted six interdependent main themes regarding factors that affect information flows between hospitals and general practices: organisational, legal, financial, patient factors, individual characteristics, and emotional & social factors. The latter theme emerged as particularly rich and was therefore divided into four subthemes: appreciation and understanding of the respective other, (intrinsic) motivation, socialisation, and relationships. Organised meetings and events were mentioned as strategies to address emotional and social factors.

Conclusions

Digitalisation can facilitate information flows between care providers. However, knowing each other and good personal relations remain important for effective collaboration. Cooperation between all stakeholders is needed to aim to achieve continuity of care.

Trial registration: DRKS00015183 on DRKS/ Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1218–0992. Date of registration 23/08/2018.

Supporting employees with chronic conditions to stay at work: perspectives of occupational health professionals and organizational representatives

Background

Supporting employees with chronic conditions can prevent work-related problems and facilitate sustainable employment. Various stakeholders are involved in providing support to these employees. Understanding their current practices and experienced barriers is useful for the development of an organizational-level intervention to improve this support. The aim of this study was to explore the current practices of occupational physicians and organizational representatives, identifying both barriers to providing support and opportunities for improvement.

Methods

Two focus groups with sixteen occupational physicians and seven semi-structured interviews with organizational representatives were held between January and June 2018. Data was analyzed using thematic content analysis.

Results

Several barriers to offer support were identified, including barriers at the organizational level (negative organizational attitudes towards employees with chronic conditions), the employee level (employees’ reluctance to collaborate with employers in dealing with work-related problems), and in the collaboration between occupational physicians and organizational representatives. In addition, barriers in occupational health care were described, e.g. occupational physicians’ lack of visibility and a lack of utilization of occupational physicians’ support. Opportunities to optimize support included a shared responsibility of all stakeholders involved, actively anchoring prevention of work-related problems in policy and practice and a more pronounced role of the health care sector in preventing work-related problems.

Conclusions

Preventing work-related problems for employees with chronic conditions can be achieved by addressing the identified barriers to provide support. In addition, both occupational physicians and organizational representatives should initiate and secure preventive support at the organizational level and in occupational health care. These insights are helpful in developing an intervention aimed at supporting employees with chronic conditions to stay at work.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10633-y.

Addressing future work ability of employees in GP consultations: results of a cross-sectional study

Objectives

In this study we examined to what extent members of a best-practice integrated healthcare model in Germany discussed their subjective future work ability with their general practitioner (GP); furthermore, we examined independent variables which explain whether future work ability is discussed.

Methods

In a cross-sectional survey, 1168 (out of 3218 invited) integrated healthcare members responded to a standardized questionnaire. This study includes n = 475 employed respondents who were at most 65 years old. We determined the (relative) frequency of employed members up to 65 years who had already discussed their subjective future work ability with their GP. By means of logistic regression analysis, explanatory variables were identified which statistically explained the discussion of future work ability with their GP.

Results

N = 80 (16.8%) respondents stated they had discussed their future work ability with their GP. A multiple logistic regression analysis showed the following results: The odds ratio for discussing future work ability is increased the more satisfied respondents are with their general practitioner, the worse they assess their current work ability in relation to the physical demands of the job, and when respondents suffer from one or more chronic diseases (Nagelkerke’s pseudo-R² = 0.13).

Conclusions

Even in this healthcare setting, employees up to the age of 65 rarely discussed their subjective future work ability with their GP. This suggests that the issue ‘future work ability’ is even less commonly discussed in other community-based care settings in Germany. It seems that health care providers involved in acute care only sporadically take this issue into consideration - despite the great importance of maintaining work ability.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12995-021-00299-y.

Occupational Physicians' Perspectives on Determinants of Employee Participation in a Randomized Controlled Musculoskeletal Health Promotion Measure: A Qualitative Study

Occupational physicians (OPs) are key figures for advising employees and employers about prevention and health at the workplace. However, knowledge of their views on participation in health promotion measures is sparse. This qualitative study aims to explore occupational physicians' experiences with employee participation in a randomized controlled workplace measure for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in Germany. We conducted eight semi-structured telephone interviews with occupational physicians. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a combination of conventional and directed content analysis. Findings were mapped based on Andersen's behavioral model of health services use, resulting in four categories and 10 subcategories. (a) Contextual factors of the measure comprised impacts of the healthcare system and company environment, (b) individual factors of measure participation comprised demographic, social, belief, and MSD need characteristics, (c) health behavior during the measure included OPs' communication, employees' personal practices and measure participation, and (d) outcomes of participation included health status, satisfaction, and dissatisfaction with the measure. Findings imply occupational physicians' and employees' views should be investigated on a broader scale. Researchers should use present statements for the development of intervention studies, while political and managerial authorities can improve organizational conditions of prevention based on these findings.

Facilitators, barriers and support needs for staying at work with a chronic condition: a focus group study

BACKGROUND

Working with a chronic condition can be challenging. Providing support to workers with a chronic condition can help them to stay at work and prevent work-related problems. Workers with a chronic condition who successfully stay at work can provide valuable input for the development of effective supportive interventions to prevent exit from work and facilitate sustainable employment. The aim of this study is to explore the lived experiences of workers with a chronic condition and identify existing barriers, facilitators and possible support needs for staying at work.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted between August and December 2017 with workers with one or more chronic conditions (n = 30). Participants included employees and (partially) self-employed workers. All focus group data were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Disclosure and expressing one's needs were considered important personal facilitators for staying at work. Environmental facilitators included receiving practical information on working with a chronic condition and social and employer support. Environmental barriers were identified in the work environment, the health care system and service provision, e.g., manager and co-worker's lack of knowledge about working with a chronic condition, a lack of focus on work in the course of treatment for a chronic condition, dissatisfaction with occupational physician support, and the absence of support for self-employed workers. Provided support should be available to all workers, and be proactive and tailored to the workers' specific support needs.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of facilitators, barriers and support needs were identified in various domains. By addressing environmental barriers (e.g., by integrating work in the course of treatment and creating supportive work environments), sustainable employment by workers with a chronic condition can be promoted.

Who Should Play a Key Role in Preventing Common Mental Disorders that Affect Employees in the Workplace? Results of a Survey with Occupational Health Physicians, Primary Care Physicians, Psychotherapists, and Human Resource Managers

The rising burden of common mental disorders (CMDs) in employees requires strategies for prevention. No systematic data exist about how those involved perceive their roles, responsibilities, and interactions with other professional groups. Therefore, we performed a multi-professional standardized survey with health professionals in Germany. A self-administered questionnaire was completed by 133 occupational health physicians (OHPs), 136 primary care physicians (PCPs), 186 psychotherapists (PTs), and 172 human resource managers (HRMs). Inter alia, they were asked which health professionals working in the company health service and in the outpatient care or in the sector of statutory insurance agents should play a key role in the primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention of CMDs in employees. The McNemar test was used in order to compare the attributed roles among the professionals involved. With regard to CMDs, all the professional groups involved in this study declared OHPs as the most relevant pillar in the field of prevention. In primary prevention, HRMs regarded themselves, OHPs, and health insurance agents as equally relevant in terms of prevention. PTs indicated an important role for employee representatives in this field. In secondary prevention, PCPs were regarded as important as OHPs. HRMs indicated themselves as equally important as OHPs and PCPs. In tertiary prevention, only OHPs identified themselves as main protagonists. The other groups marked a variety of several professions. There is a common acceptance from the parties involved that might help the first steps be taken toward overcoming barriers, e.g., by developing a common framework for quality-assured intersectional cooperation in the field of CMD prevention in employees.