Dupriez K, Vader J P
Institut universitaire de médecine sociale et préventive, Lausanne.
Soz Praventivmed. 1996;41(6):387-94. doi: 10.1007/BF01324289.
The Commissions of the Swiss Disability Insurance (CDI), in order to evaluate the degree of disability which determines the right to benefits, can call upon Medical Observation Centers (MOCD) for a pluridisciplinary examination. The utilization rate of the MOCD, by the 28 CDI, varies by a factor of 1 to 50. The goal of this study is to identify the causes of this variation related to the differences in CDI practice. The CDI answered a mail survey. For analysis, they are allocated into 3 groups of equal size: Low, medium and high users of MOCD. There is no association between the use of the official and non-official criteria for referral to MOCD and utilization rate of the MOCD. The CDI have a false perception of their MOCD use; 40% of them underestimate it. Considering together the utilization rate of the substitutes and of the MOCD, variation still persists from 1 to 9 among the CDI. There is no difference in the reasons for non-referral to the MOCD according to the level of utilization. This study failed to identify the causes of the utilization differences of the MOCD by the CDI. Other factors should be examined.
瑞士残疾保险委员会(CDI)为评估决定福利资格的残疾程度,可要求医学观察中心(MOCD)进行多学科检查。28个CDI对MOCD的利用率相差1至50倍。本研究的目的是确定与CDI实践差异相关的这种差异的原因。CDI回复了一份邮件调查。为进行分析,它们被分成规模相等的3组:MOCD的低、中、高使用组。使用官方和非官方转介标准转介至MOCD与MOCD的利用率之间没有关联。CDI对其MOCD使用情况存在错误认知;其中40%低估了使用率。综合考虑替代机构和MOCD的利用率,CDI之间的差异仍在1至9倍之间。根据利用率水平,不转介至MOCD的原因没有差异。本研究未能确定CDI对MOCD利用率差异的原因。应研究其他因素。