Comparison of competency priorities between UK occupational physicians and occupational health nurses.

OBJECTIVES: The competencies required of occupational physicians (OPs) and occupational health nurses (OHNs) separately have been studied in various countries but little research has made direct comparisons between these two key occupational health (OH) professional groups. The aim of this study was to compare current competency priorities between UK OPs and OHNs. METHODS: A modified Delphi study conducted among professional organisations and networks of UK OPs and OHNs. This formed part of a larger Delphi, including international OPs. It was undertaken in two rounds (round 1-'rating', round 2-'ranking'), using a questionnaire based on available OH competency guidance, the literature, expert panel reviews and conference discussions. RESULTS: In each round (rating/ranking), 57/49 and 48/54 responses were received for OPs and OHNs respectively. The principle domain (PD) competency ranks were very highly correlated (Spearman's r=0.972) with the same PDs featuring in the top four and bottom three positions. OPs and OHNs ranked identically for the top two PDs (good clinical care and general principles of assessment and management of occupational hazards to health). Research methods was ranked lowest by both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study has observed a high level of agreement among UK OPs and OHNs on current competency priorities. The 'clinically focused' competency priorities likely reflect that although OH practice will broaden in response to various factors, traditional 'core' OH activities will still be required. These mutually identified priorities can serve to strengthen collaboration between these groups, develop joint education/training programmes and identify common professional development opportunities.

Case management training needs to support vocational rehabilitation for case managers and general practitioners: a survey study.

BACKGROUND: The use of the biopsychosocial model of health and case management for effective vocational rehabilitation (VR) has been confirmed for many health conditions. While Case and Condition Managers (CCMPs) use this approach in their everyday work, little is known about their views on training needs. A review of the training curriculum for General Practitioners' (GPs) revealed little training in VR and the biopsychosocial model of care. This study aims to identify Case and Condition Managers and GPs perceptions of their training needs in relation to employability and VR. METHODS: 80 Case and Condition Managers and 304 GPs working in NHS Lanarkshire, providing a comparison group, were invited to participate in this study. A self-completion questionnaire was developed and circulated for online completion with a second round of hardcopy questionnaires distributed. RESULTS: In total 45 responses were obtained from CCMPs, 5 from occupational health nurses (62% response rate) and 60 from GPs (20% response rate). CCMPs and the nursing group expressed a need for training but to a lesser extent than GP's. The GP responses demonstrated a need for high levels of training in case/condition management, the biopsychosocial model, legal and ethical issues associated with employment and VR, and management training. CONCLUSIONS: This survey confirms a need for further training of CCMPs and that respondent GPs in one health board are not fully equipped to deal with patients employability and vocational needs. GPs also reported a lack of understanding about the role of Case and Condition managers. Training for these professional groups and others involved in multidisciplinary VR could improve competencies and mutual understanding among those advising patients on return-to-work.