[New paths to interprofessional collaboration: collaboration between assistant practitioners and practice nurses in general and occupational health care]. / Nieuwe wegen naar arbocuratieve samenwerking: samen werken van praktijkondersteuners huis- en bedrijfsarts bij multiproblematiek.

Background: To this date, there is little to no interprofessional collaboration between professionals in general and occupational health care in the Netherlands. Where earlier initiatives for improvement focused on general practitioners (GPs) and occupational physicians (OPs), we examine the role that professionals working under task delegation of GPs and OPs can play in addressing problems on multiple life domains as well as in interprofessional collaboration.Methods: We conducted three focus group interviews with 7 assistant practitioners (APs) in general practice, 11 practice nurses (PNs) in general practice and 8 APs in occupational health practice.Results: All PNs and APs in our study are confronted with multi-domain problems and see a role for themselves in addressing these problems. Moreover, in case of multi-domain problems, they acknowledge the relevance of interprofessional collaboration to provide good care. At this moment, however, there is practically no collaboration at the level of PNs and APs. Challenges are found in the formal task delegation and role identity of the APs in occupational health practice, unfamiliarity and prejudices among especially general practice PNs and APs regarding occupational health care, and practical barriers as privacy laws and reachability.Conclusion: Interprofessional collaboration among PNs and APs in general and occupational health care is possible, provided that a solution is found for fundamental and practical challenges. Potential solutions are to shift the focus from sharing medical information to communicating about the needs of working patients to function healthily on multiple life domains, to address interprofessional collaboration in educations, to adapt consultation protocols to include work and to organize joint meetings between professionals in general and occupational health practice. Finally, addressing structural barriers such as privacy laws and financing requires political action.

Work-relatedness of the presented health problem and sickness absence.

BACKGROUND: Perception by workers of their health problems as work-related is possibly associated with sickness absence (SA). The aim of this study was to to study the relationship between perceived work-relatedness of health problems and SA among workers who visit their GP, taking the influence of other potential determinants into account and to study the influence of these determinants on SA. Design and setting prospective cohort study in 32 Dutch GP practices. METHODS: A secondary analysis of RCT data among workers, aged 18-63 years, who visited their GP. We measured self-reported SA days in 12 months and high SA (>20 days in 12 months) and compared workers who perceived work-relatedness (WR+) with workers who did not (WR-). With multivariable linear and logistic regression models, we analyzed the influence of age, gender, experienced health, chronic illness, prior SA, number of GP consultations and perceived work ability. RESULTS: We analyzed data of 209 workers, 31% perceived work-relatedness. Geometric mean of SA days was 1.6 (95% CI: 0.9-3.0) for WR+- workers and 1.2 (95% CI: 0.8-1.8) for WR- workers (P = 0.42). Incidence of high SA was 21.5 and 13.3%, respectively (odds ratio 1.79; 95% CI: 0.84-3.84). SA was positively associated with chronic illness, prior SA, low perceived work ability and age over 50. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived work-relatedness was not associated with SA. SA was associated with chronic illness, prior SA, low perceived work ability and age over 50.

Affecting patients with work-related problems by educational training of their GPs: a cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the cost effectiveness of training aimed at increasing general practitioners' (GP) work awareness and patients' work-related self-efficacy and quality of life. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial in twenty-six GP practices in the southeast of the Netherlands with 32 participating GPs. GPs working in an intervention group practice received training and GPs working in a control group practice delivered usual care. The training intervention consisted of lectures and workshops aimed at increasing GPs' work awareness and more proactive counseling for patients with work-related problems (WRP). Subjects were working age patients with paid work for at least 12 h per week, who visited one of the participating GPs during the study period. As outcome measures we used the Return to Work Self Efficacy scale to assess patients' work-related self-efficacy and the Euroquol to assess quality of life. We also measured health care costs and productivity costs. With a 4-item questionnaire we asked patients to assess their GPs' work awareness. Data were collected at baseline, after 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Data of 280 patients could be analyzed. The patient related outcomes did not improve after GP training. The change in GP work awareness and the overall mean cost difference (of €770) in favor of the intervention group were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The training intervention presented in this paper was not cost-effective. Training which is further personalized and targeted at high risk groups with respect to WRP, is more likely to be cost effective.

Training GPs to improve their management of work-related problems: results of a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Paying attention to their patients' work and recognizing work-related problems is challenging for many general practitioners (GPs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of training designed to improve the care for patients with work-related problems in general practice. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial among 32 Dutch GPs. GPs in the intervention group received five-hour training. GPs in the control group were not trained. Included patients (age 18-63, working ≥12 h per week) completed baseline questionnaires and follow-up questionnaires planned after one year. Primary outcome at patient level was patients' expectations about their ability to work, measured using the return-to-work self-efficacy scale (RTW-SE). Primary outcomes on GP level were their use of ICPC-code Z05 ('work-related problem') per 1000 working-age patients and percentage of the electronic medical files of working-age patients in which information about occupation had been recorded. RESULTS: A total of 640 patients completed the baseline questionnaire and 281 the follow-up questionnaire. We found no statistically significant differences in patients' RTW-SE scores: intervention 4.6 (95%CI: 4.2-5.0); control 4.5 (95%CI: 4.1-4.9). Twenty-nine GPs provided data about the GP-level outcomes, which showed no statistically significant differences: use of ICPC code Z05 11.6 (95%CI: 4.7-18.6) versus 6.0 (95%CI: -1.2 to 13.2) per 1000 working-age patients; recording of occupation 28.8% (95%CI: 25.8-31.7) versus 28.6% (95%CI: 25.6-31.6). CONCLUSION: Training GPs did not improve patients' work-related self-efficacy or GPs' registration of work-related problems and occupation.

How do Dutch GPs address work-related problems? A focus group study.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, there is a lack of knowledge about general practitioners' (GPs) perception of their role regarding patients' occupation and work related problems (WRP). As work and health are closely related, and patients expect help from their GPs in this area, a better understanding is needed of GPs' motivation to address WRP. OBJECTIVES: To explore GPs' opinions on their role in the area of work and health. METHODS: This is a qualitative study using three focus groups with Dutch GPs from the catchment area of a hospital in the Southeast of the Netherlands. The group was heterogeneous in characteristics such as sex, age, and practice setting. Three focus groups were convened with 18 GPs. The moderator used an interview guide. Two researchers analysed verbatim transcripts using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: We distinguished three items: (a) work context in a GP's integrated consultation style; (b) counselling about sick leave; (c) cooperation with occupational physicians (OPs). The participants are willing to address the topic and counsel about sick leave. They consider WRP in patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) challenging. They tend to advise these patients to continue working as they think this will ultimately benefit them. CONCLUSION: The participating GPs seemed well aware of the relation between work and health but need more knowledge, communication skills and better cooperation with occupational physicians to manage work-related problems. [Box: see text].