The reproducibility of psychiatric evaluations of work disability: two reliability and agreement studies.

BACKGROUND: Expert psychiatrists conducting work disability evaluations often disagree on work capacity (WC) when assessing the same patient. More structured and standardised evaluations focusing on function could improve agreement. The RELY studies aimed to establish the inter-rater reproducibility (reliability and agreement) of 'functional evaluations' in patients with mental disorders applying for disability benefits and to compare the effect of limited versus intensive expert training on reproducibility. METHODS: We performed two multi-centre reproducibility studies on standardised functional WC evaluation (RELY 1 and 2). Trained psychiatrists interviewed 30 and 40 patients respectively and determined WC using the Instrument for Functional Assessment in Psychiatry (IFAP). Three psychiatrists per patient estimated WC from videotaped evaluations. We analysed reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]) and agreement ('standard error of measurement' [SEM] and proportions of comparisons within prespecified limits) between expert evaluations of WC. Our primary outcome was WC in alternative work (WCalternative.work), 100-0%. Secondary outcomes were WC in last job (WClast.job), 100-0%; patients' perceived fairness of the evaluation, 10-0, higher is better; usefulness to psychiatrists. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability for WCalternative.work was fair in RELY 1 (ICC 0.43; 95%CI 0.22-0.60) and RELY 2 (ICC 0.44; 0.25-0.59). Agreement was low in both studies, the 'standard error of measurement' for WCalternative.work was 24.6 percentage points (20.9-28.4) and 19.4 (16.9-22.0) respectively. Using a 'maximum acceptable difference' of 25 percentage points WCalternative.work between two experts, 61.6% of comparisons in RELY 1, and 73.6% of comparisons in RELY 2 fell within these limits. Post-hoc secondary analysis for RELY 2 versus RELY 1 showed a significant change in SEMalternative.work (- 5.2 percentage points WCalternative.work [95%CI - 9.7 to - 0.6]), and in the proportions on the differences ≤ 25 percentage points WCalternative.work between two experts (p = 0.008). Patients perceived the functional evaluation as fair (RELY 1: mean 8.0; RELY 2: 9.4), psychiatrists as useful. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from non-randomised studies suggests that intensive training in functional evaluation may increase agreement on WC between experts, but fell short to reach stakeholders' expectations. It did not alter reliability. Isolated efforts in training psychiatrists may not suffice to reach the expected level of agreement. A societal discussion about achievable goals and readiness to consider procedural changes in WC evaluations may deserve considerations.

Use of a structured functional evaluation process for independent medical evaluations of claimants presenting with disabling mental illness: rationale and design for a multi-center reliability study.

BACKGROUND: Work capacity evaluations by independent medical experts are widely used to inform insurers whether injured or ill workers are capable of engaging in competitive employment. In many countries, evaluation processes lack a clearly structured approach, standardized instruments, and an explicit focus on claimants' functional abilities. Evaluation of subjective complaints, such as mental illness, present additional challenges in the determination of work capacity. We have therefore developed a process for functional evaluation of claimants with mental disorders which complements usual psychiatric evaluation. Here we report the design of a study to measure the reliability of our approach in determining work capacity among patients with mental illness applying for disability benefits. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a multi-center reliability study, in which 20 psychiatrists trained in our functional evaluation process will assess 30 claimants presenting with mental illness for eligibility to receive disability benefits [Reliability of Functional Evaluation in Psychiatry, RELY-study]. The functional evaluation process entails a five-step structured interview and a reporting instrument (Instrument of Functional Assessment in Psychiatry [IFAP]) to document the severity of work-related functional limitations. We will videotape all evaluations which will be viewed by three psychiatrists who will independently rate claimants' functional limitations. Our primary outcome measure is the evaluation of claimant's work capacity as a percentage (0 to 100 %), and our secondary outcomes are the 12 mental functions and 13 functional capacities assessed by the IFAP-instrument. Inter-rater reliability of four psychiatric experts will be explored using multilevel models to estimate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Additional analyses include subgroups according to mental disorder, the typicality of claimants, and claimant perceived fairness of the assessment process. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that a structured functional approach will show moderate reliability (ICC ≥ 0.6) of psychiatric evaluation of work capacity. Enrollment of actual claimants with mental disorders referred for evaluation by disability/accident insurers will increase the external validity of our findings. Finding moderate levels of reliability, we will continue with a randomized trial to test the reliability of a structured functional approach versus evaluation-as-usual.

Attitudes towards evaluation of psychiatric disability claims: a survey of Swiss stakeholders.

QUESTIONS: In Switzerland, evaluation of work capacity in individuals with mental disorders has come under criticism. We surveyed stakeholders about their concerns and expectations of the current claim process. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide online survey among five stakeholder groups. We asked 37 questions addressing the claim process and the evaluation of work capacity, the maximum acceptable disagreement in judgments on work capacity, and its documentation. RESULTS: Response rate among 704 stakeholders (95 plaintiff lawyers, 285 treating psychiatrists, 129 expert psychiatrists evaluating work capacity, 64 social judges, 131 insurers) varied between 71% and 29%. Of the lawyers, 92% were dissatisfied with the current claim process, as were psychiatrists (73%) and experts (64%), whereas the majority of judges (72%) and insurers (81%) were satisfied. Stakeholders agreed in their concerns, such as the lack of a transparent relationship between the experts' findings and their conclusions regarding work capacity, medical evaluations inappropriately addressing legal issues, and the experts' delay in finalising the report. Findings mirror the characteristics that stakeholders consider important for an optimal work capacity evaluation. For a scenario where two experts evaluate the same claimant, stakeholders considered an inter-rater difference of 10%‒20% in work capacity at maximum acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Plaintiff lawyers, treating psychiatrists and experts perceive major problems in work capacity evaluation of psychiatric claims whereas judges and insurers see the process more positively. Efforts to improve the process should include clarifying the basis on which judgments are made, restricting judgments to areas of expertise, and ensuring prompt submission of evaluations.