Funktionsbeschreibung in der Begutachtung der Arbeitsfähigkeit – Was ist „evidence-based“?

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist es, einen Überblick über mögliche Instrumente zur Bemessung der Funktionsfähigkeit bei der gutachterlichen Einschätzung der beruflichen Leistungsfähigkeit zu geben.

Methode: Systematische Literaturrecherche.

Ergebnisse: Es konnten verschiedene Instrumente identifiziert werden, von denen allerdings keines speziell für psychiatrische Fragestellungen konzipiert und für den gutachterlichen Bereich validiert worden ist.

Schlussfolgerungen: Die Entwicklung eines spezifischen Instruments zur Funktionsbeschreibung im gutachterlichen Bereich könnte sinnvoll sein und so die Qualität des Gutachtenprozesses verbessern helfen.

Abstract

Aim: Occupational capacity evaluations have previously been subject to criticism for lacking in quality and consistency. To the authors’ knowledge, there is no clear consensus on the best way to formally assess functioning within capacity evaluations. In this review we investigated different instruments that are used to assess functioning in occupational capacity evaluations.

Methods: Systematic review of the literature.

Results: Though several instruments that assess functional capacity were found in our search, a specific validated instrument assessing occupational capacity as part of a larger psychiatric evaluation was not found. The limitations of the existing instruments on assessing functional capacity are discussed.

Conclusion: Medical experts relying on instruments to conduct functional capacity evaluations should be cognizant of their limitations. The findings call for the development and use of an instrument specifically designed to assess the functional and occupational capacity of psychiatric patients, which is also likely to improve the quality of these reports.

• Literatur

• 1 SGB V. Sozialgesetzbuch. 4.. Aufl. München: C. H. Beck Verlag; 2011
  Google Scholar
• 2 Bundesrat. Bundesgesetz über die Invalidenversicherung (IVG). (19.06.1959). Im Internet: https://www.admin.ch (Stand: 01.01.2014)
  Google Scholar
• 3 Bund DR. Rentenversicherung in Zeitreihen. (12.11.2014). Im Internet: 2014. http://www.deutsche-rentenversicherung.de (Stand: 12.11.2014)
  Google Scholar
• 4 De Boer W, Besseling J, Willems J. Organisation of disability evaluation in 15 countries. Pratiques et organisation des soins 2007; 38: 205-217
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Anner J, Kunz R, Boer W. Reporting about disability evaluation in European countries. Disabil Rehabil 2014; 36: 848-854
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Legner R, Cibis W. [Quality assurance in sociomedical evaluation]. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 2007; 46: 57-61
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Goldman HH. Commentary on measuring disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94: 1687-1689
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Ludwig C. Gutachtenqualität im Unfallversicherungsbereich. Suva-Med Mitteilungen 2006; 77: 5-16
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Schandelmaier S, Fischer K, Mager R et al. Evaluation of work capacity in Switzerland: a survey among psychiatrists about practice and problems. Swiss Med Wkly 2013; 143: w13890
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Stöhr S, Bollag Y, Auerbach H et al. Quality assessment of a randomly selected sample of Swiss medical expertises. Swiss Med Wkly 2011; 141: w13173
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Baer N, Frick U, Fasel T. Dossieranalyse der Individualisierungen aus psychischen Gründen: Typologisierung der Personen, ihrer Erkrankungen, Belastungen und Berentungsverläufe. Bericht im Rahmen des mehrjährigen Forschungsprogramms zu Invalidität und Behinderung (FoP-IV); Liestal, Zürich, Feldkirchen: 11. Juni 2009: BBL, Verkauf Bundespubl. 2009
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Dickmann JR, Broocks A. [Psychiatric expert opinion in case of early retirement – how reliable?].. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2007; 75: 397-401
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Schellart AJ, Mulders H, Steenbeek R et al. Inter-doctor variations in the assessment of functional incapacities by insurance physicians. BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 864
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Spanjer J, Krol B, Brouwer S et al. Sources of variation in work disability assessment. Work 2010; 37: 405-411
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Kerstholt JH, De Boer WE, Jansen NJ. Disability assessments: effects of response mode and experience. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28: 111-115
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Kalabica M, Winzelerb P. Stellenwert psycho-kognitiver Belastungsparameter am Arbeitsplatz durch eap@. Bulletin des médecins suisses| Schweizerische Ärztezeitung| Bollettino dei medici svizzeri 2008; 89: 2217
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Steenbeek R, Schellart AJ, Mulders H et al. The development of instruments to measure the work disability assessment behaviour of insurance physicians. BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 1
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 MacDonald-Wilson K, Rogers ES, Anthony WA. Unique issues in assessing work function among individuals with psychiatric disabilities. J Occup Rehabil 2001; 11: 217-232
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Marfeo EE, Haley SM, Jette AM et al. Conceptual foundation for measures of physical function and behavioral health function for Social Security work disability evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94: 1645-1652 e1642
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 van der Werff E, Verboom CE, Penninx BW et al. Explaining heterogeneity in disability associated with current major depressive disorder: effects of illness characteristics and comorbid mental disorders. J Affect Disord 2010; 127: 203-210
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Verboom CE, Sentse M, Sijtsema JJ et al. Explaining heterogeneity in disability with major depressive disorder: effects of personal and environmental characteristics. J Affect Disord 2011; 132: 71-81
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Rompe G, Erlenkämper A, Schiltenwolf M, Hollo DF. Bedeutung der ICF für die Begutachtung M. Schiltenwolf. In: Begutachtung der Haltungs- und Bewegungsorgane. 5.,. überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2009: 411-415
  Google Scholar
• 23 Dittmann V, Ebner G, Herdt J et al. Literaturstudie als Grundlage zur Entwicklung von evidenzbasierten Gütekriterien zur Beurteilung von psychischen Behinderungen. Sozialversicherungen FzIuBdBf ed. Basel: Universitäre Psychiatrische Kliniken Basel; 2009
  Google Scholar
• 24 Bacon SF, Collins MJ, Plake EV. Does the Global Assessment of Functioning assess functioning?. J Ment Health Couns 2002; 24: 202-212
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Linden M, Baron S. The “Mini-ICF-Rating for Mental Disorders (Mini-ICF-P)”. A short instrument for the assessment of disabilities in mental disorders. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 2005; 44: 144-151
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Linden M, Baron S, Muschalla B, Ostholt-Corsten M. Fähigkeitsbeeinträchtigungen bei psychischen Erkrankungen. 1.. Aufl. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber; 2014
  Google Scholar
• 27 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med 2009; 3: e123-130
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Kleffmann AL, Weinmann S, Föhres F et al. Psychologische Merkmalprofile zur Eingliederung Behinderter in Arbeit. 2.. überarb. Aufl. Siegen: Universität-Gesamthochschule-Siegen, Forschungsprojekt MELBA; 1997
  Google Scholar
• 29 Wiedl KH, Uhlhorn S, Jons K. The Osnabruck Work Capabilities Profile (O-AFP) for persons with psychiatric illness: concept, development, and testing in schizophrenic patients. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 2004; 43: 368-374
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Bolton B, Roessler R. Manual for the Work Personality Profile. Hot Springs: Arkansas Univ., Fayetteville: Research and Training Center in Vocational Rehabilitation; 1986
  Google Scholar
• 31 Ilmarinen J. The work ability index (WAI). Occup Med 2007; 57: 160-160
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Watts JH, Kielhofner G, Bauer DF et al. The assessment of occupational functioning: a screening tool for use in long-term care. Am J Occup Ther 1986; 40: 231-240
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Abma FI, van der Klink JJ, Bultmann U. The work role functioning questionnaire 2.0 (Dutch version): examination of its reliability, validity and responsiveness in the general working population. J Occup Rehabil 2013; 23: 135-147
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 de Boer W, Wijers J, Spanjer J et al. Interview protocols in social insurance medicine. Qual Evaluation Work Disabil 2007; 38: 109
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 de Boer WE, Wind H, van Dijk FJ et al. Interviews for the assessment of long-term incapacity for work: a study on adherence to protocols and principles. BMC Public Health 2009; 9: 169
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Crewe NM, Athelstan GT. Functional Assessment Inventory Manual. Menomonie: Stout Vocational Rehabilitation Institute, University of Wisconsin-Stout, WI 54751; 1984
  Google Scholar
• 37 Luborsky L. Clinician's judgments of mental health. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1962; 7: 407-417
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Endicott J, Spitzer RL, Fleiss JL et al. The global assessment scale. A procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1976; 33: 766-771
  Google Scholar
• 39 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders DSM-III-R. 3rd. ed., revised. Aufl. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1987
  Google Scholar
• 40 Hall RC. Global assessment of functioning. A modified scale. Psychosomatics 1995; 36: 267-275
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Goldman HH, Skodol AE, Lave TR. Revising axis V for DSM-IV: a review of measures of social functioning. Am J Psychiatry 1992; 149: 1148-1156
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Hannula JA, Lahtela K, Jarvikoski A et al. Occupational Functioning Scale (OFS) – an instrument for assessment of work ability in psychiatric disorders. Nord J Psychiatry 2006; 60: 372-378
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 43 WHO. ICIDH: International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. Genf: World Health Organization; 1980
  Google Scholar
• 44 WHO. WHO Psychiatric Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO/DAS), with A Guide to Its Use. Genf: World Health Organization; 1988
  Google Scholar
• 45 Wiersma D, DeJong A, Ormel J. The Groningen Social Disabilities Schedule: development, relationship with I.C.I.D.H., and psychometric properties. Int J Rehabil Res 1988; 11: 213-224
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 46 WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health. 1.. Aufl. Genf: World Health Organization; 2001
  Google Scholar
• 47 Ustun TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N et al. Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ 2010; 88: 815-823
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 48 McDonough CM, Jette AM, Ni P et al. Development of a self-report physical function instrument for disability assessment: item pool construction and factor analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94: 1653-1660
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 49 Marfeo EE, Ni P, Haley SM et al. Scale refinement and initial evaluation of a behavioral health function measurement tool for work disability evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94: 1679-1686
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 50 Marfeo EE, Ni P, Haley SM et al. Development of an instrument to measure behavioral health function for work disability: item pool construction and factor analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94: 1670-1678
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 51 Grimby G, Smedby B. ICF approved as the successor of ICIDH. J Rehabil Med 2001; 33: 193-194
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 52 Gold LH. DSM-5 and the assessment of functioning: the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2014; 42: 173-181
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 53 Schleifer R, Jeger J, Canela C et al. Abklärungstiefe psychiatrischer Gutachten Profondeur d’analyse de l’expertise psychiatrique. InFo Neurologie & Psychiatrie 2014; 12: 30-35
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 54 (BSV) BfS. Kreisschreiben über Invalidität und Hilflosigkeit in der Invalidenversicherung (KSIH). (08.12.2014). Im Internet: http://www.bsv.admin.ch (Stand: 08.12.2014)
  Google Scholar
• 55 Spanjer J. The Disability Assessment Structured Interview – Its reliability and validity in work disability assessment. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen; 2010
  Google Scholar
• 56 Spanjer J, Krol B, Brouwer S et al. Reliability and validity of the Disability Assessment Structured Interview (DASI): a tool for assessing functional limitations in claimants. J Occup Rehabil 2010; 20: 33-40
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 57 Spanjer J, Krol B, Popping R et al. Disability assessment interview: the role of detailed information on functioning in addition to medical history-taking. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 267-272
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 58 (DGPM) DGfPMuÄP, (DKPM) DKfPM. Sk2 – Leitlinie zur Begutachtung psychischer und psychosomatischer Erkrankungen AWMF – Registernr.051/029. (31.03.2012). Im Internet: http://www.awmf.org (Stand 31.03.2012)
  Google Scholar
• 59 Linden M, Baron S, Muschalla B. Mini-ICF-Rating für Aktivitäts-und Partizipationsstörungen bei psychischen Erkrankungen: Mini-ICF-APP. ein Kurzinstrument zur Fremdbeurteilung von Aktivitäts-und Partizipationsstörungen bei psychischen Erkrankungen in Anlehnung an die Internationale Klassifikation der Funktionsfähigkeit, Behinderung und Gesundheit (ICF) der Weltgesundheitsorganisation. 1.. Aufl. Bern: Huber; 2009
  Google Scholar
• 60 Colomb E, Dittmann V, Ebner G et al. Qualitätsleitlinien für psychiatrische Gutachten in der Eidgenössischen Invalidenversicherung. (Feburar 2012). Im Internet: http://www.iv-pro-medico.ch (Stand: 02/2012)
  Google Scholar
• 61 Merten T. Beschwerdenvalidierung. 1.. Aufl. Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag; 2013
  Google Scholar
• 62 Gallasch CH, Alexandre NM, Amick 3rd B. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the work role functioning questionnaire to Brazilian Portuguese. J Occup Rehabil 2007; 17: 701-711
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 63 Spanjer J, Krol B, Brouwer S et al. Inter-rater reliability in disability assessment based on a semi-structured interview report. Disabil Rehabil 2008; 30: 1885-1890
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 64 Hilsenroth MJ, Ackerman SJ, Blagys MD et al. Reliability and validity of DSM-IV axis V. Am J Psychiatry 2000; 157: 1858-1863
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 65 Jones SH, Thornicroft G, Coffey M et al. A brief mental health outcome scale-reliability and validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Br J Psychiatry 1995; 166: 654-659
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 66 Schutzwohl M, Jarosz-Nowak J, Briscoe J et al. Inter-rater reliability of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Groningen Social Disabilities Schedule in a European multi-site randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of acute psychiatric day hospitals. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2003; 12: 197-207
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 67 Garin O, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Almansa J et al. Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010; 8: 51
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar