GPs' experiences of a collaborative care model for patients with common mental disorders who need sick leave certification: a qualitative study

Effects of adding early cooperation and a work-place dialogue meeting to primary care management for sick-listed patients with stress-related disorders: CO-WORK-CARE-Stress - a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether intensified cooperation between general practitioner (GP), care manager and rehabilitation coordinator (RC) for patients sick-listed for stress-related mental disorder, combined with a person-centred dialogue meeting with employer, could reduce sick-leave days compared with usual care manager contact.

DESIGN

Pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial, randomisation at primary care centre (PCC) level.

SETTING

PCCs in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, with care manager organisation.

PARTICIPANTS

Of 30 invited PCCs, 28 (93%) accepted the invitation and recruited 258 patients newly sick-listed due to stress-related mental disorder (n = 142 intervention, n = 116 control PCCs).

INTERVENTION

Cooperation between GP, care manager and rehabilitation coordinator from start of illness notification plus a person-centred dialogue meeting between patient and employer within 3 months. Regular contact with care manager was continued at the control PCCs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

12-months net and gross number of sick-leave days. Secondary outcomes: Symptoms of stress, depression, anxiety; work ability and health related quality of life (EQ-5D) over 12 months.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between intervention and control groups after 12 months: days on sick-leave (12-months net sick-leave days, intervention, mean = 110.7 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 82.6 - 138.8); control, mean = 99.1 days (95% CI 73.9 - 124.3)), stress, depression, or anxiety symptoms, work ability or EQ-5D. There were no significant differences between intervention and control groups concerning proportion on sick-leave after 3, 6, 12 months. At 3 months 64.8% were on sick-leave in intervention group vs 54.3% in control group; 6 months 38% vs 32.8%, and12 months 16.9% vs 15.5%.

CONCLUSION

Increased cooperation at the PCC between GP, care manager and RC for stress-related mental disorder coupled with an early workplace contact in the form of a person-centred dialogue meeting does not reduce days of sick-leave or speed up rehabilitation.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03250026 https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03250026?tab=results#publicationsCO-WORK-CAREFirst Posted: August 15, 2017. Recruitment of PCCs: September 2017. Inclusion of patients from December 2017.

Process evaluation of the CO-WORK-CARE model: Collaboration and a person-centred dialogue meeting for patients with common mental disorder in primary health care

RATIONALE

To ensure optimal patient care based on evidence, it is crucial to understand how to implement new methods in practice. However, intervention studies often overlook parts of the implementation process. A comprehensive process evaluation is necessary to understand why interventions succeed or fail in specific contexts and to integrate new knowledge into daily practice. This evaluation examines the full implementation of the Co-Work-Care model in Swedish primary healthcare to identify strengths and weaknesses.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the process of implementing the CO-WORK-CARE model that focuses on close collaboration and the use of a person-centred dialogue meeting in primary healthcare for patients on sick leave due to common mental disorders.

METHOD

The CO-WORK-CARE model emphasises collaboration among the GP, rehabilitation coordinator and care manager, along with person-centred dialogue meetings involving employers. Following UK Medical Research Council guidelines, we conducted a process evaluation. Data from previous studies were reanalysed. We also analysed field notes and meeting notes using Malterud's qualitative method.

RESULTS

The evaluation identified key facilitators for model implementation, including regular visits by facilitators and guidance from the research physician. Peer support meetings also bolstered implementation. However, challenges emerged due to conflicts with existing structures and limitations in person-centred dialogue meetings.

CONCLUSION

Adapting the CO-WORK-CARE model to Swedish primary care is feasible and beneficial, with collaboration among the care manager, rehabilitation coordinator and GP and person-centred dialogue meetings. Thorough preparations, ongoing facilitator and peer support and integrated information enhanced implementation efficiency, despite challenges posed by existing structures.

Rehabilitation cooperation and person-centred dialogue meeting for patients sick-listed for common mental disorders: 12 months follow-up of sick leave days, symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress and work ability - a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial from the CO-WORK-CARE project

OBJECTIVES

To study whether early and enhanced cooperation within the primary care centres (PCC) combined with workplace cooperation via a person-centred employer dialogue meeting can reduce days on sick leave compared with usual care manager contact for patients on sick leave because of common mental disorders (CMD). Secondary aim: to study lapse of CMD symptoms, perceived Work Ability Index (WAI) and quality of life (QoL) during 12 months.

DESIGN

Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, randomisation at PCC level.

SETTING

28 PCCs in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, with care manager organisation.

PARTICIPANTS

30 PCCs were invited, 28 (93%) accepted invitation (14 intervention, 14 control) and recruited 341 patients newly sick-listed because of CMD (n=185 at intervention, n=156 at control PCCs).

INTERVENTION

Complex intervention consisting of (1) early cooperation among general practitioner (GP), care manager and a rehabilitation coordinator, plus (2) a person-centred dialogue meeting between patient and employer within 3 months.

CONTROL GROUP

regular contact with care manager.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

12 months net and gross number of sick leave days at group level.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

12 months depression, anxiety, stress symptoms, perceived WAI and QoL (EuroQoL-5 Dimensional, EQ-5D).

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between intervention and control groups concerning days of sick leave (intervention net days of sick leave mean 102.48 (SE 13.76) vs control 96.29 (SE 12.38) p=0.73), return to work (HR 0.881, 95% CI 0.688 to 1.128), or CMD symptoms, WAI or EQ-5D after 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible to speed up CMD patients' return to work or to reduce sick leave time by early and enhanced coordination among GP, care manager and a rehabilitation coordinator, combined with early workplace contact over and above what 'usual' care manager contact during 3 months provides.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03250026.