Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

Highlights

  • Study population and survey administration Our study population were psychiatrists who had conducted a minimum of five independent medical evaluation (IME) of work capacity during the previous year

  • About half of the psychiatrists combined the percentage with free text (49% last job; 42% alternative job)

  • We asked the psychiatrists two times to indicate all interpretations of percentage work capacity that they regarded as applicable (a) “in principle”, and (b) “in a recent case”

Read more

Summary

Objectives

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. We aimed to learn about the psychiatric experts’ current practice in assessing and, in particular, reporting on work capacity, and to identify potential sources for lack of transparency and high variability in IMEs that may be amenable to improvement

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call