Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Insurance Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
BMC Public Health. 2010 Dec 6;10:752. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-752.
How physicians handle sickness-certification is essential in the sickness-absence process. Few studies have focused this task of physicians' daily work. Most previous studies have only included general practitioners. However, a previous study indicated that this is a common task also among other physicians. The aim of this study was to gain detailed knowledge about physicians' work with sickness-certification and of the problems they experience in this work.
A comprehensive questionnaire regarding sickness-certification practice was sent home to all physicians living and working in Sweden (N = 36,898; response rate: 61%). This study included physicians aged <65 years who had sickness-certification consultations at least a few times a year (n = 14,210). Descriptive statistics were calculated and odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for having different types of related problems, stratified on clinical settings, using physicians working in internal medicine as reference group.
Sickness-certification consultations were frequent; 67% of all physicians had such, and of those, 83% had that at least once a week. The proportion who had such consultations >5 times a week varied between clinical settings; from 3% in dermatology to 79% in orthopaedics; and was 43% in primary health care. The OR for finding sickness-certification tasks problematic was highest among the physicians working in primary health care (OR 3.3; CI 2.9-3.7) and rheumatology clinics (OR 2.6; CI 1.9-3.5). About 60% found it problematic to assess patients' work capacity and to provide a prognosis regarding the duration of work incapacity.
So far, most interventions regarding physicians' sickness-certification practices have been targeted towards primary health care and general practitioners. Our results indicate that the ORs for finding these tasks problematic were highest in primary health care. Nevertheless, physicians in some other clinical settings more often have such consultations and many of them also find these tasks problematic, e.g. in rheumatology, neurology, psychiatry, and orthopaedic clinics. Thus, the results indicate that much can be gained through focusing on physicians in other types of clinics as well, when planning interventions to improve sickness-certification practice.
医生如何处理病假证明在病假流程中至关重要。很少有研究关注医生日常工作中的这一任务。以前的大多数研究只包括全科医生。然而,之前的一项研究表明,这也是其他医生的一项常见任务。本研究旨在深入了解医生的病假证明工作以及他们在工作中遇到的问题。
向居住和工作在瑞典的所有医生(N=36898;回复率:61%)发送了一份关于病假证明实践的综合问卷。本研究包括每年至少有几次病假证明咨询的年龄<65 岁的医生(n=14210)。对不同类型相关问题进行了描述性统计,并按临床科室进行分层,以内科医生为参考组,计算了具有不同类型相关问题的医生的比值比(OR)及其 95%置信区间(CI)。
病假证明咨询很频繁;67%的医生都有这种咨询,其中 83%的医生每周至少有一次这种咨询。不同临床科室的这种咨询次数>5 次的比例不同;从皮肤科的 3%到骨科的 79%;而在初级保健中为 43%。在初级保健(OR 3.3;CI 2.9-3.7)和风湿病诊所(OR 2.6;CI 1.9-3.5)工作的医生发现病假证明任务有问题的 OR 最高。约 60%的医生发现评估患者的工作能力和提供工作能力丧失持续时间的预后有问题。
迄今为止,大多数针对医生病假证明实践的干预措施都针对初级保健和全科医生。我们的研究结果表明,在初级保健中发现这些任务有问题的 OR 最高。然而,在一些其他临床科室,更多的医生有这样的咨询,其中许多人也发现这些任务有问题,例如在风湿病学、神经病学、精神病学和骨科诊所。因此,结果表明,在规划改善病假证明实践的干预措施时,通过关注其他类型的诊所的医生,也可以获得很多收益。