Elbers Nieke A, Chase Robin, Craig Ashley, Guy Lyn, Harris Ian A, Middleton James W, Nicholas Michael K, Rebbeck Trudy, Walsh John, Willcock Simon, Lockwood Keri, Cameron Ian D
Sydney Medical School Northern, University of Sydney; Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, Australia.
Tyrrell Consulting, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 May 22;17(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0460-2.
Problems may arise during the approval process of treatment after a compensable work injury, which include excess paperwork, delays in approving services, disputes, and allegations of over-servicing. This is perceived as undesirable for injured people, health care professionals and claims managers, and costly to the health care system, compensation system, workplaces and society. Introducing an Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) decision tool in the workers' compensation system could provide a partial solution, by reducing uncertainty about effective treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate attitudes of health care professionals (HCP) to the potential implementation of an EBM tool in the workers' compensation setting.
The study has a mixed methods design. The quantitative study consisted of an online questionnaire asking about self-reported knowledge, attitudes and behaviour to EBM in general. The qualitative study consisted of interviews about an EBM tool being applied in the workers' compensation process. Participants were health care practitioners from different clinical specialties. They were recruited through the investigators' clinical networks and the workers' compensation government regulator's website.
Participants completing the questionnaire (n = 231) indicated they were knowledgeable about the evidence-base in their field, but perceived some difficulties when applying EBM. General practitioners reported having the greatest obstacles to applying EBM. Participants who were interviewed (n = 15) perceived that an EBM tool in the workers' compensation setting could potentially have some advantages, such as reducing inappropriate treatment, or over-servicing, and providing guidance for clinicians. However, participants expressed substantial concerns that the EBM tool would not adequately reflect the impact of psychosocial factors on recovery. They also highlighted a lack of timeliness in decision making and proper assessment, particularly in pain management.
Overall, HCP are supportive of EBM, but have strong concerns about implementation of EBM based decision making in the workers' compensation setting. The participants felt that an EBM tool should not be applied rigidly and should take into account clinical judgement and patient variability and preferences. In general, the treatment approval process in the workers' compensation insurance system is a sensitive area, in which the interaction between HCP and claims managers can be improved.
在可补偿工伤后的治疗审批过程中可能会出现问题,包括文书工作过多、服务审批延迟、纠纷以及过度服务的指控。这对受伤人员、医疗保健专业人员和理赔管理人员来说是不利的,并且对医疗保健系统、赔偿系统、工作场所和社会而言成本高昂。在工人赔偿系统中引入循证医学(EBM)决策工具可能会提供一个部分解决方案,即减少有效治疗的不确定性。本研究的目的是调查医疗保健专业人员(HCP)对在工人赔偿环境中潜在实施EBM工具的态度。
本研究采用混合方法设计。定量研究包括一份在线问卷,询问关于自我报告的对EBM的总体知识、态度和行为。定性研究包括对在工人赔偿过程中应用的EBM工具进行访谈。参与者是来自不同临床专业的医疗保健从业者。他们通过研究者的临床网络和工人赔偿政府监管机构的网站招募。
完成问卷的参与者(n = 231)表示他们对所在领域的证据基础有一定了解,但在应用EBM时察觉到一些困难。全科医生报告在应用EBM时障碍最大。接受访谈的参与者(n = 15)认为在工人赔偿环境中的EBM工具可能有一些优势,例如减少不适当的治疗或过度服务,并为临床医生提供指导。然而,参与者对EBM工具不能充分反映心理社会因素对康复的影响表示了极大担忧。他们还强调在决策和适当评估方面缺乏及时性,尤其是在疼痛管理方面。
总体而言,HCP支持EBM,但对在工人赔偿环境中基于EBM的决策实施存在强烈担忧。参与者认为EBM工具不应被严格应用,应考虑临床判断以及患者的个体差异和偏好。一般来说,工人赔偿保险系统中的治疗审批过程是一个敏感领域,在这个领域中HCP和理赔管理人员之间的互动可以得到改善。