Health care management of sickness certification tasks: results from two surveys to physicians

Physicians' attitudes to disability pension - impact of diagnosis: an experimental study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to increase understanding of physicians' attitudes towards disability pension applicants, and the impact of diagnosis. We hypothesize that physicians are more likely to think that patients with physical illnesses should get a disability pension than those with mental illness or alcohol dependence. Disability pension is an important source of income for those unable to work because of a disability and type of diagnosis should not impact accessing these benefits.

METHODS

We conducted an experiment with a 2 by 3 factorial structure in Sweden. Each physician was randomly assigned one of six patient vignettes, with the same background description but with a different diagnosis. Each vignette had a diagnosis of either depression, alcohol dependence or low back pain, and was about a man or a woman. Logistic regression was used to examine the odds of a physician reporting that a patient should get a disability pension. Effects are reported in terms of odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

1414 Swedish registered physicians in psychiatry or general practice (24% response rate) completed the survey. Physicians assigned the alcohol dependent vignette had OR 0.45 (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.60) for perceiving that a patient should get a disability pension compared to physicians assigned the low back pain vignette. Physicians assigned the depression vignette had OR 1.89 (95% CI: 1.42 to 2.50) for perceiving that a patient should get a disability pension compared to physicians assigned the low back pain vignette.

CONCLUSION

The patient diagnosis was associated with the physicians' response regarding if the patient should get a disability pension. A physician's perception is likely to impact a patient's access to disability pension.

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.

Collaboration in work ability assessment for sick-listed persons in primary healthcare

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) have expressed difficulties in issuing sickness certificates and problems may arise if this work is not performed in an adequate manner. There is scant knowledge about how collaboration with other professions could be organized to enhance this work.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the feasibility of occupational therapists (OTs) performing supplementary assessments for persons on sick leave.

METHODS

Four healthcare centres (HCs) tested a working approach intervention where sick-listed patients were offered a complementary occupational therapy assessment. The OT assessments were intended to provide useful information for GP issued extended sickness certificates. Data on sick leave, sickness certificates and patient questionnaires were collected at different HCs. Interviews were conducted with GPs and OTs and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to analyse the intervention's implementation.

RESULTS

No major differences in the sickness certificate quality was found. Available data on sick leave increased for all HCs during the project. Not all GPs used the OT assessments, which indicates that the implementation of the intervention was insufficient.

CONCLUSION

Testing a new working approach in primary healthcare requires an implementation strategy. To improve sickness certification quality, this work needs to be prioritized as an important healthcare task.

Respectful encounters from healthcare professionals and return to work among 9032 long-term sick-listed due to cancer or due to other diagnoses: results from a Swedish population-based survey

Purpose

To examine whether experiences of positive respectful encounters and negative disrespectful encounters differ between sickness absentees with a cancer diagnosis and sickness absentees with other diagnoses, especially in relation to their ability to return to work (RTW).

Methods

A total of 9032 long-term sickness absentees in Sweden responded to a questionnaire (response rate 52%) about experiences of positive and negative encounters with healthcare professionals. The association between different types of such encounters and participants feeling respected or disrespected were calculated with population attributable risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The perceived impact on ability to RTW was also examined.

Results

Significantly, larger proportions among those who experienced a positive encounter and also felt respected stated that those encounters facilitated their ability to RTW, compared to those who experienced a positive encounter without feeling respected: among cancer absentees the difference in proportions were 21% (CI, 7–34) versus 50% (CI, 45–55); among absentees with other diagnoses 42% (CI, 37–47) versus 63% (CI, 61–64). Similar comparisons among sick-listed who experienced negative encounters indicated that also feeling disrespected impeded ability to RTW among a significantly larger proportion of those with other diagnoses [51% (CI, 48–54) versus 35% (CI, 31–39) of those not feeling disrespected]. Among cancer absentees, the corresponding proportions were 20% (CI, 9–30) versus 25% (CI, 9–41).

Conclusions

Compared to sickness absentees with other diagnoses, a larger proportion of cancer sickness absentees stated that they were facilitated by respectful encounters and not impeded by disrespectful encounters, regarding self-estimated ability to RTW. More research is needed to examine whether these differences can be associated with use of a patient-centered encountering approach.

General practitioners' use of sickness certification guidelines in Sweden at introduction and four years later: a survey study

Objective

National sickness certification guidelines were introduced in Sweden in 2007, comprising both overarching and diagnoses-specific recommendations. This study aimed to investigate how general practitioners (GP) used and perceived the usefulness of these guidelines in the sickness certification process close after introduction and 4 years later.

Design

Two nationwide cross-sectional surveys in 2008 and 2012.

Setting

Swedish healthcare.

Participants

Physicians working in primary healthcare and having sickness certification consultations at least a few times per year (n = 4214 in 2008, and n = 4067 in 2012).

Main Outcome Measures

Frequency of use and perceived usefulness of the sickness certification guidelines.

Results

Most GPs used the guidelines at least a few times per year (in 2008 74.6%; in 2012 85.2%). In 2008, 44.1% reported a need to develop competence in using the guidelines, compared with 23.3% in 2012. Of those using the guidelines, 36.7% in 2008 and 44.6% in 2012 reported it problematic to write sickness certificates in accordance with the guidelines. Most GPs (89.2% in 2008 and 88.8% in 2012) valued the guidelines beneficial to ensure quality in sickness certification consultations. A larger proportion in 2012 compared with 2008 reported that the guidelines facilitated contacts with patients (61.2%, respectively, 55.6%), as well as with other stakeholders.

Conclusions

The guidelines were perceived as useful and beneficial to ensure high quality in sickness certification consultations, and facilitated contacts with patients as well as other stakeholders. In 2012, still one-fourth reported a need to develop more competence in using the sickness certification guidelines.

Obstetricians/Gynecologists' Problems in Sickness Certification Consultations: Two Nationwide Surveys

Objective. To explore experiences by physicians working in obstetrics, gynecology, or maternal healthcare (O/Gs) of problems in sickness certification consultations and differences between two years. Material and Methods. Answers by O/Gs to two Swedish nationwide surveys, in 2008 (n = 1037) and 2012 (n = 992), were analyzed for frequencies and severity of problems and organizational support in sickness certification consultations. Results. One-third of O/Gs found sickness certifications problematic every week. The most frequent problem was patients requesting sick notes for reasons other than work incapacity due to disease/injury (2008: 21%; 2012: 16%). The most problematic were assessing work capacity (2008 and 2012: 52%) and having different opinion from that of the patient about need for sick leave (2008: 51%; 2012: 46%). In 2012, 27% used the national sickness certification guidelines weekly, compared to 9% in 2008. A larger proportion in 2012 than 2008 reported that the guidelines facilitated contacts with patients and different stakeholders. Conclusions. Although O/Gs perceived sickness certification as problematic, there was less perceived severity of problems in 2012 compared to 2008, possibly because interventions regarding sickness certification have been introduced in Sweden recent years. Still, more organizational support, for example, time and supervision, are needed to enhance O/Gs' sickness certification practices.

Problems experienced by gynecologists/obstetricians in sickness certification consultations

OBJECTIVE

To explore frequencies and experiences with problems in sickness certification consultations among gynecologists and obstetricians in two different years.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional surveys on two occasions; in 2004 and 2008.

SETTING

Gynecological, obstetric and maternal health care.

SAMPLE

Physicians working in gynecology, obstetrics or maternal health care in two Swedish counties from two samples: in 2004 (n = 315), and in 2008 (n = 327).

METHODS

Data regarding sickness certification consultations were obtained from comprehensive questionnaires that had been mailed to the physicians in two Swedish counties in 2004 and in 2008, respectively.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequencies and types of problems in sickness certification consultations, organizational support, and need to acquire more competence.

RESULTS

The majority experienced that patients requested to be on sick leave for a reason other than work incapacity due to disease or injury, at least a few times per year (85% in 2004 and 88% in 2008). The most problematic situation to handle was when the physician and the patient had different opinions about the need for sick leave (2004: 66% and 2008: 58%). The physicians expressed a need for more competence about the options and responsibilities of employers, social insurance officers and physicians in sickness certification cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Most gynecologists/obstetricians find sickness certification consultations problematic and especially when encountering patients requesting to be on sick leave for reasons other than disease. The physicians expressed a need for more competence in insurance medicine, especially about their own and other stakeholders' options and responsibilities.