Systematic development of a communication skills training course for physicians performing work disability assessments: from evidence to practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Physicians require specific communication skills, because the face-to-face contact with their patients is an important source of information. Although physicians who perform work disability assessments attend some communication-related training courses during their professional education, no specialised and evidence-based communication skills training course is available for them. Therefore, the objectives of this study were: 1) to systematically develop a training course aimed at improving the communication skills of physicians during work disability assessment interviews with disability claimants, and 2) to plan an evaluation of the training course.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A physician-tailored communication skills training course was developed, according to the six steps of the Intervention Mapping protocol. Data were collected from questionnaire studies among physicians and claimants, a focus group study among physicians, a systematic review of the literature, and meetings with various experts. Determinants and performance objectives were formulated. A concept version of the training course was discussed with several experts before the final training course programme was established. The evaluation plan was developed by consulting experts, social insurance physicians, researchers, and policy-makers, and discussing with them the options for evaluation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A two-day post-graduate communication skills training course was developed, aimed at improving professional communication during work disability assessment interviews. Special focus was on active teaching strategies, such as practising the skills in role-play. An adoption and implementation plan was formulated, in which the infrastructure of the educational department of the institute that employs the physicians was utilised. Improvement in the skills and knowledge of the physicians who will participate in the training course will be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The feasibility and practical relevance of the communication skills training course that was developed seem promising. Such a course may be relevant for physicians in many countries who perform work disability assessments. The development of the first training course of this type represents an important advancement in this field.</p

Interviews for the assessment of long-term incapacity for work: a study on adherence to protocols and principles

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Assessments for long-term incapacity for work are performed by Social Insurance Physicians (SIPs) who rely on interviews with claimants as an important part of the process. These interviews are susceptible to bias. In the Netherlands three protocols have been developed to conduct these interviews. These protocols are expert- and practice-based. We studied to what extent these protocols are adhered to by practitioners.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We compared the protocols with one another and with the ICF and the biopsychosocial approach. The protocols describe semi-structured interviews with comparable but not identical topics. All protocols prescribe that the client's opinion on his capacity for work, and his arguments, need to be determined and assessed. We developed a questionnaire to elicit the adherence SIPs have to the protocols, their underlying principles and topics. We conducted a survey among one hundred fifty-five experienced SIPs in the Netherlands.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ninety-eight SIPs responded (64%). All respondents used some form of protocol, either one of the published protocols or their own mix. We found no significant relation between training and the use of a particular protocol. Ninety percent use a semi-structured interview. Ninety-five percent recognise having to verify what the claimant says and eighty-three percent feel the need to establish a good relation (p = 0.019). Twelve topics are basically always addressed by over eighty percent of the respondents. The claimant's opinion of being fit for his own work or other work, and his claim of incapacity and his health arguments for that claim, reach a hundred percent. Description of claimants' previous work reaches ninety-nine percent.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our study shows professional consensus among experienced Dutch SIPs about the principle of assessment on arguments, the principle of conducting a semi-structured interview and the most crucial interview topics. This consensus can be used to further develop a protocol for interviewing in the assessment of incapacity for work in social insurance. Such a protocol can improve the quality of the assessments in terms of transparency and reproducibility, as well as by enabling clients to better prepare themselves for the assessments.</p

Evidence-based guidelines in the evaluation of work disability: an international survey and a comparison of quality of development

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In social insurance, the evaluation of work disability is becoming stricter as priority is given to the resumption of work, which calls for a guarantee of quality for these evaluations. Evidence-based guidelines have become a major instrument in the quality control of health care, and the quality of these guidelines' development can be assessed using the AGREE instrument. In social insurance medicine, such guidelines are relatively new. We were interested to know what guidelines have been developed to support the medical evaluation of work disability and the quality of these guidelines.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Five European countries that were reported to use guidelines were approached, using a recent inventory of evaluations of work disability in Europe. We focused on guidelines that are disease-oriented and formally prescribed in social insurance medicine. Using the AGREE instrument, these guidelines were appraised by two researchers. We asked two experts involved in guideline development to indicate if they agreed with our results and to provide explanations for insufficient scores.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found six German and sixteen Dutch sets of disease-oriented guidelines in official use. The AGREE instrument was applicable, requiring minor adaptations. The appraisers reached consensus on all items. Each guideline scored well on 'scope and purpose' and 'clarity and presentation'. The guidelines scored moderately on 'stakeholder involvement' in the Netherlands, but insufficiently in Germany, due mainly to the limited involvement of patients' representatives in this country. All guidelines had low scores on 'rigour of development', which was due partly to a lack of documentation and of existing evidence. 'Editorial independence' and 'applicability' had low scores in both countries as a result of how the production was organised.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Disease-oriented guidelines in social insurance medicine for the evaluation of work disability are a recent phenomenon, so far restricted to Germany and the Netherlands. The AGREE instrument is suitably applicable to assess the quality of guideline development in social insurance medicine, but some of the scoring rules need to be adapted to the context of social insurance. Existing guidelines do not meet the AGREE criteria to a sufficient level. The way patients' representatives can be involved needs further discussion. The guidelines would profit from more specific recommendations and, for providing evidence, more research is needed on the functional capacity of people with disabilities.</p

Validation of the EUMASS Core Set for medical evaluation of work disability

Objective: To perform a content validation of the EUMASS Core Set across six European social insurance systems. The EUMASS Core Set contains 20 categories to describe the functional (in-) capacity of claimants for disability benefits. Methods: We performed an exploratory, cross-sectional study. We used the EUMASS Core Set, added scales to rate the relevance of the 20 categories and added additional questions concerning comprehensiveness, usefulness and sufficiency of the instrument. Medical examiners from European countries filled in this instrument in 10 consecutive claim assessments. Results: Forty-eight medical examiners in six different countries evaluated 446 claimants. The medical examiners used all categories to describe the claimants' functional (in-) capacity. Medical examiners missed 41 different categories, often mental functions (n=17). They rated the instrument as useful in 68.4% and as sufficient in 63.2% of the claims. Perceived usefulness varied among countries, but not among disease groups. Perceived sufficiency varied among countries and disease groups. Conclusion: The EUMASS Core Set is promising for reporting about functional (in-) capacities. It contains relevant categories for disability evaluation among countries and disease groups. Adding more mental functions might make it more applicable. Medical examiners found it useful and sufficient to evaluate functional (in-) capacity.Implications for RehabilitationIn medical reports of evaluation of work disability, reporting about functional capacity is often unstructured in free text, making the reports difficult to understand.The EUMASS Core Set contains common definitions for expressing functional capacity and is expected to support taking decisions, to improve the quality of decisions and to allow national and international comparisons.Our study suggests the EUMASS core set to be comprehensive, useful and sufficient to express functional capacity in disability evaluation. © 2013 Informa UK Ltd. All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or part not permitted.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Return-to-work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave

BACKGROUND: To limit long-term sick leave and associated consequences, insurers, healthcare providers and employers provide programmes to facilitate disabled people's return to work. These programmes include a variety of coordinated and individualised interventions. Despite the increasing popularity of such programmes, their benefits remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to determine the long-term effectiveness of return-to-work coordination programmes compared to usual practice in workers at risk for long-term disability. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of return-to-work coordination programmes versus usual practice for workers on sick leave or disability. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to 1 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled workers absent from work for at least four weeks and randomly assigned them to return-to-work coordination programmes or usual practice. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility; extracted data; and assessed risk of bias from eligible trials. We contacted authors for additional data where required. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies from nine countries that enrolled 12,568 workers. Eleven studies focused on musculoskeletal problems, two on mental health and one on both. Most studies (11 of 14) followed workers 12 months or longer. Risk of bias was low in 10 and high in 4 studies, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.We found no benefits for return-to-work coordination programmes on return-to-work outcomes.For short-term follow-up of six months, we found no effect on time to return to work (hazard ratio (HR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.88, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (mean difference (MD) -16.18 work days per year, 95% CI -32.42 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work, that is, regardless of whether they had remained at work until last follow-up (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19, very low-quality evidence).For long-term follow-up of 12 months, we found no effect on time to return to work (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (MD -14.84 work days per year, 95% CI -38.56 to 8.88, low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.15, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.09, moderate-quality evidence).For very long-term follow-up of longer than 12 months, we found no effect on time to return to work (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (MD 7.00 work days per year, 95% CI -15.17 to 29.17, moderate-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02, low-quality evidence).We found only small benefits for return-to-work coordination programmes on patient-reported outcomes. All differences were below the minimal clinically important difference (MID). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Offering return-to-work coordination programmes for workers on sick leave for at least four weeks results in no benefits when compared to usual practice. We found no significant differences for the outcomes time to return to work, cumulative sickness absence, the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up or the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work at short-term, long-term or very long-term follow-up. For patient-reported outcomes, we found only marginal effects below the MID. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate across all outcomes

Superior Effectiveness of Tofacitinib Compared to Vedolizumab in Anti-TNF-experienced Ulcerative Colitis Patients: A Nationwide Dutch Registry Study

Background & Aims: Clinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and tofacitinib in anti-TNF-exposed patients with UC in our prospective nationwide Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry. Methods: Patients with UC who failed anti-TNF treatment and initiated vedolizumab or tofacitinib treatment were identified in the Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry in the Netherlands. We selected patients with both clinical as well as biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at initiation of therapy. Patients previously treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib were excluded. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤2), biochemical remission (C-reactive protein ≤5 mg/L or fecal calprotectin ≤250 μg/g), and safety outcomes were compared after 52 weeks of treatment. Inverse propensity score-weighted comparison was used to adjust for confounding and selection bias. Results: Overall, 83 vedolizumab- and 65 tofacitinib-treated patients were included. Propensity score-weighted analysis showed that tofacitinib-treated patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission and biochemical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52 compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (odds ratio [OR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.81–10.50; P < .01; OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.89–4.84; P < .01; and OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15–2.99; P = .01; and OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.96–5.45; P < .01; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.14–3.07; P = .01; and OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06–3.09; P = .03, respectively). There was no difference in infection rate or severe adverse events. Conclusions: Tofacitinib was associated with superior effectiveness outcomes compared with vedolizumab in anti-TNF-experienced patients with UC along with comparable safety outcomes