Patient-centeredness in psychiatric work disability evaluations and the reproducibility of work capacity estimates

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the extent of patient-centeredness in psychiatric work disability evaluations and its association with the reproducibility of work capacity (WC) estimates.

METHODS

In our mixed methods study, 29 video-taped interviews conducted in psychiatric work disability evaluations were coded with the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) and different measures of patient-centeredness were derived from these codings, including a summary patient-centred communication ratio. Four experts each estimated a claimant's WC on a scale from 0% to 100%.

RESULTS

Patient-centred communication ratios were always >1, suggesting a preponderance of psychosocial information exchange. In contrast, utterances reflecting empathy were rare e.g., the expert did not address the claimant's emotions in 25 of 29 interviews. None of the derived patient-centeredness measures showed a significant association with WC reproducibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the experts' questions addressed the claimant's lifestyle and psychosocial situation. However, this likely reflected factual requirements for the expert opinion, rather than patient-centeredness. Indeed, the experts rarely showed empathy, which is a hallmark characteristic of patient-centeredness. The reproducibility of work capacity estimates was not modulated by patient-centeredness, irrespective of its quantification.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patient-centeredness in work disability evaluations should find its entry in continuing education of experts.

Digitally Assisted Standard Diagnostics in Insurance Medicine (DASDIM): psychometric data in psychiatric work disability evaluations

PURPOSE

Insurers often commission psychiatric experts to evaluate the eligibility of workers with mental disorders for disability benefits, by estimating their residual work capacity (RWC). We investigated the validity of a standardized, computer-based battery of established diagnostic instruments, for evaluating the personality, cognition, performance, symptom burden, and symptom validity of claimants.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-three claimants for benefits were assessed by the assembled test battery, which was applied in addition to a conventional clinical work disability evaluation.

RESULTS

A principal component analysis of the test and questionnaire battery data revealed six factors (Negative Affectivity, Self-Perceived Work Ability, Behavioral Dysfunction, Working Memory, Cognitive Processing Speed, and Excessive Work Commitment). Claimants with low, medium, and high RWC exclusively varied in the factor Negative Affectivity. Importantly, this factor also showed a strong association to psychiatric ratings of capacity limitations in psychosocial functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate that the used test battery allows a substantiation of RWC estimates and of psychiatric ratings by objective and standardized data. If routinely incorporated in work disability evaluations, the test battery could increase their transparency for all stakeholders (insurers, claimants, medical experts, expert case-coordinators, and legal practitioners) and would open new avenues for research in the field of insurance medicine.Implications for rehabilitationThe residual work capacity (RWC) estimation by medical experts is internationally good practice, but plagued by a relatively low interrater agreement.The current study shows that psychiatric RWC estimates and capacity limitation ratings can be substantiated by data from objective, standardized psychometric instruments.Systematically using such instruments might help to improve the poor interrater agreement for RWC estimates in work disability evaluations.Such data could also be used for adopting vocational trainings and return-to-work programs to the individual needs of workers with mental health problems.

Dilemmes des médecins traitants lors du retour au travail de personnes aux prises avec un trouble mental courant : illustration par des vignettes cliniques

Introduction Les troubles mentaux courants (TMC) sont une des causes majeures d’invalidité au travail dans le monde. Plusieurs études démontrent que plus la durée de l’arrêt de travail est longue, plus minces sont les chances que la personne avec un TMC retourne au travail. Il est donc important que l’arrêt de travail soit d’une durée adéquate pour permettre à l’individu un rétablissement durable tout en diminuant les risques de rechute. Les médecins traitants ont un rôle important à jouer dans le cadre de la reprise professionnelle des personnes avec un TMC.

Objectif Cet article a comme principal objectif de présenter des vignettes cliniques supportées par la littérature relativement à la gestion par les médecins traitants de la reprise professionnelle de leurs patients avec un TMC.

Méthodologie Issues d’expériences cliniques, 3 vignettes cliniques illustrant plusieurs dilemmes que des médecins traitants peuvent rencontrer lors de la reprise professionnelle de leurs patients avec un TMC sont présentées. Les dilemmes sont soutenus par des articles publiés entre 2000 à 2020, provenant des bases de données Medline et PsycInfo.

Résultats et discussion Les 3 vignettes portent sur les dilemmes relatifs aux thèmes suivants : 1) l’évaluation du potentiel thérapeutique des arrêts de travail ; 2) le rôle d’expert octroyé aux médecins traitants et au processus d’évaluation de la capacité à travailler ; 3) les aspects administratifs liés à cette évaluation ; 4) la relation thérapeutique médecin-patient. La littérature nous indique que ce sont des dilemmes récurrents chez les médecins traitants dans le contexte de la gestion de la reprise professionnelle à la suite d’un TMC.

Conclusion La gestion des arrêts maladie chez les travailleurs avec un TMC par les médecins traitants comporte plusieurs dilemmes. Ces dilemmes mettent en lumière, entre autres, l’importance pour les médecins traitants de travailler en collaboration avec les autres acteurs et d’obtenir leur soutien et collaboration. Ces observations nous amènent à conduire une revue plus systématique de l’expérience des médecins traitants et de leurs besoins.

Perceived fairness of claimants undergoing a work disability evaluation: Development and validation of the Basel Fairness Questionnaire

Background

There are currently no tools for assessing claimants’ perceived fairness in work disability evaluations. In our study, we describe the development and validation of a questionnaire for this purpose.

Method

In cooperation with subject-matter experts of Swiss insurance medicine, we developed the 30-item Basel Fairness Questionnaire (BFQ). Claimants anonymously answered the questionnaire immediately after their disability evaluation, still unaware about its outcome. For each item, there were four response options, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The construct validity of the BFQ was assessed by running a principal component analysis (PCA).

Results

In 4% of the questionnaires, the claimants’ perception on the disability evaluation was negative (below the median of the scale). The PCA of the items responses followed by an orthogonal rotation revealed four factors, namely (1) Interviewing Skills, (2) Rapport, (3) Transparency, and (4) Case Familiarity, explaining 63.5% of the total variance.

Discussion

The ratings presumably have some positive bias by sample selection and response bias. The PCA factors corresponded to dimensions that subject-matter experts had beforehand identified as relevant. However, all item ratings were highly intercorrelated, which suggests that the presumed underlying dimensions are not independent.

Conclusion

The BFQ represents the first self-administered instrument for measuring claimants’ perceived fairness of work disability evaluations, allowing the assessment of informational, procedural, and interactive justice from the perspective of claimants. In cooperation with Swiss assessment centres, we plan to implement a refined version of the BFQ as feedback instrument in work disability evaluations.

Stakeholders' Role and Actions in the Return-to-Work Process of Workers on Sick-Leave Due to Common Mental Disorders: A Scoping Review

The lack of knowledge regarding the roles and actions of return to work (RTW) stakeholders create confusion and uncertainty about how and when to RTW after experiencing a common mental disorder (CMD). Purpose The purpose of this scoping review is to disentangle the various stakeholders' role and actions in the RTW process of workers on sick-leave due to CMDs. The research question is: What is documented in the existing literature regarding the roles and actions of the identified stakeholders involved in the RTW process of workers on sick-leave due to CMDs? Methods In conducting this scoping review, we followed Arksey and O'Malley's (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19-32, 2005) methodology, consisting of different stages (e.g., charting the data by categorizing key results). Results 3709 articles were screened for inclusion, 243 of which were included for qualitative synthesis. Several RTW stakeholders (n=11) were identified (e.g., workers on sick leave due to CMDs, managers, union representatives, rehabilitation professionals, insurers, return to work coordinators). RTW stakeholders' roles and actions inter- and intra-system were recommended, either general (e.g., know and understand the perspectives of all RTW stakeholders) or specific to an actor (e.g., the return to work coordinator needs to create and maintain a working alliance between all RTW stakeholders). Furthermore, close to 200 stakeholders' actions, spread out on different RTW phases, were recommended for facilitating the RTW process. Conclusions Eleven RTW stakeholders from the work, heath and insurance systems have been identified, as well as their respective roles and actions. Thanks to these results, RTW stakeholders and policy makers will be able to build practical relationships and collaboration regarding the RTW of workers on sick leave due to CMDs.

Assessing work capacity - reviewing the what and how of physicians' clinical practice

Background

Although a main task in the sickness certification process, physicians’ clinical practice when assessing work capacity has not been thoroughly described. Increased knowledge on the matter is needed to better understand and support the certification process. In this review, we aimed to synthesise existing qualitative evidence to provide a clearer description of the assessment of work capacity as practiced by physicians.

Method

Seven electronic databases were searched systematically for qualitative studies examining what and how physicians do when they assess work capacity. Data was analysed and integrated using thematic synthesis.

Results

Twelve articles were included. Results show that physicians seek to form a knowledge base including understanding the condition, the patient and the patient’s workplace. They consider both medical and non-medical aspects to affect work capacity. To acquire and process the information they use various skills, methods and resources. Medical competence is an important basis, but not enough. Time, trust, intuition and reasoning are also used to assess the patient’s claims and to translate the findings into a final assessment. The depth and focus of the information seeking and processing vary depending on several factors.

Conclusion

The assessment of work capacity is a complex task where physicians rely on their non-medical skills to a higher degree than in ordinary clinical work. These skills are highly relevant but need to be complemented with access to appropriate resources such as understanding of the associations between health, work and social security, enough time in daily work for the assessment and ways to better understand the patient’s work place. Also, the notion of an “objective” evaluation is questioned, calling for a greater appreciation of the complexity of the assessment and the role of professional judgement.

Does self-perceived health correlate with physician-assessed functional limitations in medical work disability assessments?

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to obtain information about the correlation between workers' self-perceived health and physician-assessed functional limitations. We also studied whether this correlation differed between workers with subjective health complaints that cannot (SHC) and those that can be explained (non-SHC) by a well-defined medical disease.

METHODS

Baseline data of 2040 participants from a prospective cohort study were used for this study. These participants answered a questionnaire on their self-perceived health and received a medical work disability assessment during which physicians reported functional limitations. Pearson correlation analyses were used to calculate correlations between 4 functional limitation factors and 11 self-perceived health factors. For correlations with coefficients ≥0.30, linear regression analyses were performed to assess possible differences between participants with SHC (n = 363) and those with non-SHC (n = 1677).

RESULTS

We found correlations ≥0.30 between two functional limitation factors and six self-perceived health factors for all participants. SHC participants showed lower correlations than the non-SHC participants between the physical functional limitation and the SF-36 self-perceived physical health factors (-0.49, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.41 vs. -0.60, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.57) and between the mental functional limitation and the SF-36 self-perceived mental health factors (-0.30, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.20 vs. -0.40, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.36).

CONCLUSION

Self-perceived health showed overall low to moderate correlations with physician-assessed functional limitations. Some of these correlations were lower for workers with SHC than for those with non-SHC. This may indicate that physicians rely slightly more on well-defined medical complaints within medical work disability assessments.

Inter-rater agreement in evaluation of disability: systematic review of reproducibility studies

OBJECTIVES

 To explore agreement among healthcare professionals assessing eligibility for work disability benefits.

DESIGN

 Systematic review and narrative synthesis of reproducibility studies.

DATA SOURCES

 Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO searched up to 16 March 2016, without language restrictions, and review of bibliographies of included studies.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

 Observational studies investigating reproducibility among healthcare professionals performing disability evaluations using a global rating of working capacity and reporting inter-rater reliability by a statistical measure or descriptively. Studies could be conducted in insurance settings, where decisions on ability to work include normative judgments based on legal considerations, or in research settings, where decisions on ability to work disregard normative considerations. : Teams of paired reviewers identified eligible studies, appraised their methodological quality and generalisability, and abstracted results with pretested forms. As heterogeneity of research designs and findings impeded a quantitative analysis, a descriptive synthesis stratified by setting (insurance or research) was performed.

RESULTS

 From 4562 references, 101 full text articles were reviewed. Of these, 16 studies conducted in an insurance setting and seven in a research setting, performed in 12 countries, met the inclusion criteria. Studies in the insurance setting were conducted with medical experts assessing claimants who were actual disability claimants or played by actors, hypothetical cases, or short written scenarios. Conditions were mental (n=6, 38%), musculoskeletal (n=4, 25%), or mixed (n=6, 38%). Applicability of findings from studies conducted in an insurance setting to real life evaluations ranged from generalisable (n=7, 44%) and probably generalisable (n=3, 19%) to probably not generalisable (n=6, 37%). Median inter-rater reliability among experts was 0.45 (range intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86 to κ-0.10). Inter-rater reliability was poor in six studies (37%) and excellent in only two (13%). This contrasts with studies conducted in the research setting, where the median inter-rater reliability was 0.76 (range 0.91-0.53), and 71% (5/7) studies achieved excellent inter-rater reliability. Reliability between assessing professionals was higher when the evaluation was guided by a standardised instrument (23 studies, P=0.006). No such association was detected for subjective or chronic health conditions or the studies' generalisability to real world evaluation of disability (P=0.46, 0.45, and 0.65, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

 Despite their common use and far reaching consequences for workers claiming disabling injury or illness, research on the reliability of medical evaluations of disability for work is limited and indicates high variation in judgments among assessing professionals. Standardising the evaluation process could improve reliability. Development and testing of instruments and structured approaches to improve reliability in evaluation of disability are urgently needed.

Use of a structured functional evaluation process for independent medical evaluations of claimants presenting with disabling mental illness: rationale and design for a multi-center reliability study

BACKGROUND

Work capacity evaluations by independent medical experts are widely used to inform insurers whether injured or ill workers are capable of engaging in competitive employment. In many countries, evaluation processes lack a clearly structured approach, standardized instruments, and an explicit focus on claimants' functional abilities. Evaluation of subjective complaints, such as mental illness, present additional challenges in the determination of work capacity. We have therefore developed a process for functional evaluation of claimants with mental disorders which complements usual psychiatric evaluation. Here we report the design of a study to measure the reliability of our approach in determining work capacity among patients with mental illness applying for disability benefits.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a multi-center reliability study, in which 20 psychiatrists trained in our functional evaluation process will assess 30 claimants presenting with mental illness for eligibility to receive disability benefits [Reliability of Functional Evaluation in Psychiatry, RELY-study]. The functional evaluation process entails a five-step structured interview and a reporting instrument (Instrument of Functional Assessment in Psychiatry [IFAP]) to document the severity of work-related functional limitations. We will videotape all evaluations which will be viewed by three psychiatrists who will independently rate claimants' functional limitations. Our primary outcome measure is the evaluation of claimant's work capacity as a percentage (0 to 100 %), and our secondary outcomes are the 12 mental functions and 13 functional capacities assessed by the IFAP-instrument. Inter-rater reliability of four psychiatric experts will be explored using multilevel models to estimate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Additional analyses include subgroups according to mental disorder, the typicality of claimants, and claimant perceived fairness of the assessment process.

DISCUSSION

We hypothesize that a structured functional approach will show moderate reliability (ICC ≥ 0.6) of psychiatric evaluation of work capacity. Enrollment of actual claimants with mental disorders referred for evaluation by disability/accident insurers will increase the external validity of our findings. Finding moderate levels of reliability, we will continue with a randomized trial to test the reliability of a structured functional approach versus evaluation-as-usual.