Search

Questions Under Study: In Switzerland, psychiatric evaluations of work capacity for determining a person's eligibility for disability benefits are being criticised for a lack of transparency and high inter-rater variability. The aims of this study were to learn about the current practice of psychiatrists, to explore possible sources for lack of transparency and variability, and to contrast practice with current professional guidance., Methods: A national online-survey among psychiatrists who performed five or more evaluations of work capacity per year. Based on discussions with experts and a literature review, we structured questions focusing on reporting on work capacity, the description of a claimant's previous job, and measures of quality assurance., Results: A total of 129 psychiatrists responded (31% of estimated 412 eligible psychiatrists). The majority reported using instructions of the insurers (77%), peer consulting (65%) and process guidelines (51%). They expressed a claimant's work capacity as free text and percentage work capacity (49%), percentage only (23%), or free text only (14%). A total of 13% used instruments to document work capacity. Psychiatrists considered three different interpretations of percentage work capacity as equally applicable. A job description was regarded as mandatory to determine work capacity by 90% but only 26% received it and found it mostly deficient., Conclusions: The transparency and reliability of Swiss psychiatrists' conclusions on a claimant's work capacity may be reduced by unsystematic reporting, variable interpretation of the percentage work capacity, lack of a detailed job description and insufficient quality control. Education, engagement of insurers and new guidelines might be effective means of implementing improvements.

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.)