Cargando…

Independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of GPs´ expectations and experiences

BACKGROUND: Norwegian general practitioners (GPs) are important stakeholders because they manage 80% of people on long-term sick-leave. Independent medical evaluation (IME) for long-term sick-listed patients is being evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial in one county in Norway in an effo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aamland, Aase, Husabo, Elisabeth, Maeland, Silje
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6114176/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30157844
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3481-3
_version_ 1783351139636346880
author Aamland, Aase
Husabo, Elisabeth
Maeland, Silje
author_facet Aamland, Aase
Husabo, Elisabeth
Maeland, Silje
author_sort Aamland, Aase
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Norwegian general practitioners (GPs) are important stakeholders because they manage 80% of people on long-term sick-leave. Independent medical evaluation (IME) for long-term sick-listed patients is being evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial in one county in Norway in an effort to lower the national sick-leave rate (the NIME trial: Effect Evaluation of IME in Norway). The aim of the current study was to explore GPs’ expectations of and experiences with IMEs. METHODS: We conducted three focus group interviews with a convenience sample of 14 GPs who had had 2–9 (mean 5) of their long-term sick-listed patients summoned to an IME. We asked them to recollect and describe their concrete expectations of and experiences with patients assigned to an IME. Systematic text condensation, a method for thematic cross-case analysis, was applied for analysis. RESULTS: To care for and to reassure their assigned sick-listed patients, the participants had spent time and applied different strategies before their patients had attended an IME. The participants welcomed a second opinion from an experienced GP colleague as a way of obtaining constructive advice for further sick-leave measures and/or medical advice. However, they mainly described the IME reports in negative terms, as these were either too categorical or provided unusable advice for further follow-up of their sick-listed patients. The participants did not agree with the proposed routine use of IMEs but instead suggested that GPs should be able to select particularly challenging sick-listed patients for an IME, which should be performed by a peer. CONCLUSION: Our participants showed positive attitudes towards second opinions but found the regular IMEs to be unsuitable. The participants did however welcome IMEs if they themselves could select particularly challenging patients for a mandatory second opinion by a peer but emphasized that IME-doctors should not be able to overrule a GP’s sick-leave recommendation. These findings, together with other evaluations, will serve as a basis for the Norwegian government’s decision on whether or not to implement IMEs for long-term sick-listed patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02524392. Registered 23 June, 2015. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3481-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6114176
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61141762018-09-04 Independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of GPs´ expectations and experiences Aamland, Aase Husabo, Elisabeth Maeland, Silje BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Norwegian general practitioners (GPs) are important stakeholders because they manage 80% of people on long-term sick-leave. Independent medical evaluation (IME) for long-term sick-listed patients is being evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial in one county in Norway in an effort to lower the national sick-leave rate (the NIME trial: Effect Evaluation of IME in Norway). The aim of the current study was to explore GPs’ expectations of and experiences with IMEs. METHODS: We conducted three focus group interviews with a convenience sample of 14 GPs who had had 2–9 (mean 5) of their long-term sick-listed patients summoned to an IME. We asked them to recollect and describe their concrete expectations of and experiences with patients assigned to an IME. Systematic text condensation, a method for thematic cross-case analysis, was applied for analysis. RESULTS: To care for and to reassure their assigned sick-listed patients, the participants had spent time and applied different strategies before their patients had attended an IME. The participants welcomed a second opinion from an experienced GP colleague as a way of obtaining constructive advice for further sick-leave measures and/or medical advice. However, they mainly described the IME reports in negative terms, as these were either too categorical or provided unusable advice for further follow-up of their sick-listed patients. The participants did not agree with the proposed routine use of IMEs but instead suggested that GPs should be able to select particularly challenging sick-listed patients for an IME, which should be performed by a peer. CONCLUSION: Our participants showed positive attitudes towards second opinions but found the regular IMEs to be unsuitable. The participants did however welcome IMEs if they themselves could select particularly challenging patients for a mandatory second opinion by a peer but emphasized that IME-doctors should not be able to overrule a GP’s sick-leave recommendation. These findings, together with other evaluations, will serve as a basis for the Norwegian government’s decision on whether or not to implement IMEs for long-term sick-listed patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02524392. Registered 23 June, 2015. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3481-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6114176/ /pubmed/30157844 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3481-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Aamland, Aase
Husabo, Elisabeth
Maeland, Silje
Independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of GPs´ expectations and experiences
title Independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of GPs´ expectations and experiences
title_full Independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of GPs´ expectations and experiences
title_fullStr Independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of GPs´ expectations and experiences
title_full_unstemmed Independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of GPs´ expectations and experiences
title_short Independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of GPs´ expectations and experiences
title_sort independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of gps´ expectations and experiences
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6114176/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30157844
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3481-3
work_keys_str_mv AT aamlandaase independentmedicalevaluationforsicklistedpatientsafocusgroupstudyofgpsexpectationsandexperiences
AT husaboelisabeth independentmedicalevaluationforsicklistedpatientsafocusgroupstudyofgpsexpectationsandexperiences
AT maelandsilje independentmedicalevaluationforsicklistedpatientsafocusgroupstudyofgpsexpectationsandexperiences