Search

Questions: In Switzerland, evaluation of work capacity in individuals with mental disorders has come under criticism. We surveyed stakeholders about their concerns and expectations of the current claim process., Methods: We conducted a nationwide online survey among five stakeholder groups. We asked 37 questions addressing the claim process and the evaluation of work capacity, the maximum acceptable disagreement in judgments on work capacity, and its documentation., Results: Response rate among 704 stakeholders (95 plaintiff lawyers, 285 treating psychiatrists, 129 expert psychiatrists evaluating work capacity, 64 social judges, 131 insurers) varied between 71% and 29%. Of the lawyers, 92% were dissatisfied with the current claim process, as were psychiatrists (73%) and experts (64%), whereas the majority of judges (72%) and insurers (81%) were satisfied. Stakeholders agreed in their concerns, such as the lack of a transparent relationship between the experts' findings and their conclusions regarding work capacity, medical evaluations inappropriately addressing legal issues, and the experts' delay in finalising the report. Findings mirror the characteristics that stakeholders consider important for an optimal work capacity evaluation. For a scenario where two experts evaluate the same claimant, stakeholders considered an inter-rater difference of 10%‒20% in work capacity at maximum acceptable., Conclusions: Plaintiff lawyers, treating psychiatrists and experts perceive major problems in work capacity evaluation of psychiatric claims whereas judges and insurers see the process more positively. Efforts to improve the process should include clarifying the basis on which judgments are made, restricting judgments to areas of expertise, and ensuring prompt submission of evaluations.

Background: Assessments of long-term work disability are carried out by social insurance physicians (SIPs) and are little supported with evidence or instruments. Guidelines are hardly ever used in social insurance medicine. Developments in social insurance medicine might be slow as insurance is different from clinical medicine., Aims: We explored the comparability of assessments in social insurance medicine in different countries and asked what guidelines were in official use., Methods: Eighteen European countries were invited. A questionnaire on assessments practices was sent to national experts. A comparative table was presented to all contributors. Countries with guidelines were visited. Guidelines were categorised according to their purpose and their contents were compared. The results were presented to experts of the participating countries for validation., Results: Fourteen countries participated. Functional capacity assessment was common. Guidelines for SIPs were reported to be officially in use in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Twenty-two guidelines were medical and eleven were procedural. Medical guidelines mainly treated the same topics. Procedural guidelines were more variable., Conclusion: Assessment of work disability is comparable between countries. Medical and procedural guidelines should be further developed and tested on their value in practice. The procedural guidelines need to be published in a clear and comparable manner. The legal security of claimants would be endorsed by this. Germany and the Netherlands are most experienced and could take the lead in international development., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Assessment of efforts to promote return-to-work (RTW) includes all efforts (vocational and non-vocational) designed to improve the work ability of the sick-listed employee and increase the chance to return to work. Aim of the study was to investigate whether in 13 European countries these RTW efforts are assessed and to compare the procedures by means of six criteria., Methods: Data were gathered in the taxonomy project of the European Union of Medicine in Assurance and Social Security and by means of an additional questionnaire., Results: In seven countries RTW efforts are subject of the assessment in relation to the application for disability benefits. Description of RTW efforts is a prerequisite in five countries. Guidelines on the assessment of RTW efforts are only available in the Netherlands and no countries report the use of the ICF model. Based on the results of the additional questionnaire, the assessor is a social scientist or a physician. The information used to assess RTW efforts differs, from a report on the RTW process to medical information. A negative outcome of the assessment leads to delay of the application for disability benefits or to application for rehabilitation subsidy., Conclusion: RTW efforts are assessed in half of the participating European countries. When compared, the characteristics of the assessment of RTW efforts in the participating European countries show both similarities and differences. This study may facilitate the gathering and exchange of knowledge and experience between countries on the assessment of RTW efforts.