[Pension Due to Full Reduction in Earning Capacity: Do Psychiatric Reports Meet the Quality Criteria for Socio-Medical Assessment?]

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION
Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1055/a-1932-3079
Lisa Schöwe, Christoph Kröger, Axel Kobelt-Poenicke
{"title":"[Pension Due to Full Reduction in Earning Capacity: Do Psychiatric Reports Meet the Quality Criteria for Socio-Medical Assessment?]","authors":"Lisa Schöwe,&nbsp;Christoph Kröger,&nbsp;Axel Kobelt-Poenicke","doi":"10.1055/a-1932-3079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The quality of socio-medical expert opinions, which are prepared for the German Pension Insurance (GPI) in the context of applications for reduced earning capacity pension due to mental disorder, has hardly been investigated so far. The aim of the present study was to investigate to what extent expert medical reports on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) comply with the guideline of the GPI on socio-medical reports for mental and behavioral disorders.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>To examine the quality of expert opinions, 52 socio-medical expert opinions in which a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was assigned and a performance capacity of less than three hours was determined were analyzed. The quality of the expert opinions was assessed both quantitatively by calculating quality points and qualitatively by analyzing the content. Percent agreement and Cohen's kappa were calculated for two raters to examine rater agreement based on a subsample (n=11).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analyzed appraisals scored an average of 36.1 (SD=7.4) out of a possible 92 quality points (range 22/56). In most of the expert opinions, the descriptions of participation limitations, epicrisis, and sociomedical conclusion were unsatisfactory.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The inadequate presentation of the functional and participation limitations in the expert opinions may not do justice to the actual facts of the case, so that the evidence of a health disorder with the corresponding participation limitations cannot be provided beyond doubt. Accordingly, measures to improve the quality of expert opinions such as training and regular quality reviews are necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":54504,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1932-3079","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The quality of socio-medical expert opinions, which are prepared for the German Pension Insurance (GPI) in the context of applications for reduced earning capacity pension due to mental disorder, has hardly been investigated so far. The aim of the present study was to investigate to what extent expert medical reports on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) comply with the guideline of the GPI on socio-medical reports for mental and behavioral disorders.

Methodology: To examine the quality of expert opinions, 52 socio-medical expert opinions in which a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was assigned and a performance capacity of less than three hours was determined were analyzed. The quality of the expert opinions was assessed both quantitatively by calculating quality points and qualitatively by analyzing the content. Percent agreement and Cohen's kappa were calculated for two raters to examine rater agreement based on a subsample (n=11).

Results: The analyzed appraisals scored an average of 36.1 (SD=7.4) out of a possible 92 quality points (range 22/56). In most of the expert opinions, the descriptions of participation limitations, epicrisis, and sociomedical conclusion were unsatisfactory.

Conclusion: The inadequate presentation of the functional and participation limitations in the expert opinions may not do justice to the actual facts of the case, so that the evidence of a health disorder with the corresponding participation limitations cannot be provided beyond doubt. Accordingly, measures to improve the quality of expert opinions such as training and regular quality reviews are necessary.

[由于收入能力完全减少而产生的养老金:精神病学报告是否符合社会医学评估的质量标准?]
目的:迄今为止,为德国养老保险(GPI)在因精神障碍而申请减少赚取能力养老金的情况下准备的社会医学专家意见的质量几乎没有进行过调查。本研究的目的是调查关于创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)的专家医学报告在多大程度上符合GPI关于精神和行为障碍社会医学报告的指南。方法:为了检查专家意见的质量,分析了52个社会医学专家意见,其中诊断为创伤后应激障碍(PTSD),并确定了少于三个小时的表现能力。通过计算质量点对专家意见的质量进行定量评价,通过分析专家意见的内容对专家意见的质量进行定性评价。基于子样本(n=11)计算两个评分者的一致性百分比和Cohen’s kappa来检查评分者的一致性。结果:在可能的92个质量点(范围22/56)中,分析的评估平均得分为36.1 (SD=7.4)。在大多数专家意见中,对参与限制、危机和社会医学结论的描述令人不满意。结论:专家意见中对功能和参与限制的陈述不充分,可能无法公正地对待案件的实际事实,因此无法毫无疑问地提供具有相应参与限制的健康障碍证据。因此,有必要采取培训和定期质量审查等措施来提高专家意见的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Die Zeitschrift Die Rehabilitation richtet sich an Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter in Einrichtungen, Forschungsinstitutionen und Trägern der Rehabilitation. Sie berichtet über die medizinischen, gesetzlichen, politischen und gesellschaftlichen Grundlagen und Rahmenbedingungen der Rehabilitation und über internationale Entwicklungen auf diesem Gebiet. Schwerpunkte sind dabei Beiträge zu Rehabilitationspraxis (medizinische, berufliche und soziale Rehabilitation, Qualitätsmanagement, neue Konzepte und Versorgungsmodelle zur Anwendung der ICF, Bewegungstherapie etc.), Rehabilitationsforschung (praxisrelevante Ergebnisse, Methoden und Assessments, Leitlinienentwicklung, sozialmedizinische Fragen), Public Health, Sozialmedizin Gesundheits-System-Forschung sowie die daraus resultierenden Probleme.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信