PURPOSE: General practitioners (GPs) and occupational health physicians (OPs) have several overlapping work fields, such as important functions in prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration into the workplace. In Germany, however, cooperation between GP and OP is often lacking or suboptimal. In this article, we analysed the suggestions for optimisation of cooperation. METHODS: Three focus groups were interviewed: GP, OP and medical doctors working in both fields. A qualitative content analysis was performed. RESULTS: Categories of suggestions could be assigned to five issues: the "Systemic View" concerning the state and/or employer (e.g. the system of remuneration for GPs), "Inter-collegial Contact" (e.g. fostering "friendly exchanges" between both groups), "Medical Education" (e.g. introducing joint quality circles), "Contents of both Specialities" (e.g. necessity of communicating respective contents and competences), and "Patient-centred Care" (e.g. reintegration into workplace after longer periods of illness). The optimisation of cooperation was considered necessary by the OPs, whereas its necessity was sometimes questioned in the GPs' group. CONCLUSION: In many aspects, the present data agree with results of studies from other countries addressing the cooperation between GPs and OPs and/or other specialists. Many suggestions obtained in this study are practical and could be implemented into daily routine. Future quantitative research is required to better assess the relative weight of the suggestions presented here.
PURPOSE: General practitioners (GPs) and occupational health physicians (OPs) have several overlapping work fields, such as important functions in prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration into the workplace. In Germany, however, cooperation between GP and OP is often lacking or suboptimal. In this article, we analysed the suggestions for optimisation of cooperation. METHODS: Three focus groups were interviewed: GP, OP and medical doctors working in both fields. A qualitative content analysis was performed. RESULTS: Categories of suggestions could be assigned to five issues: the "Systemic View" concerning the state and/or employer (e.g. the system of remuneration for GPs), "Inter-collegial Contact" (e.g. fostering "friendly exchanges" between both groups), "Medical Education" (e.g. introducing joint quality circles), "Contents of both Specialities" (e.g. necessity of communicating respective contents and competences), and "Patient-centred Care" (e.g. reintegration into workplace after longer periods of illness). The optimisation of cooperation was considered necessary by the OPs, whereas its necessity was sometimes questioned in the GPs' group. CONCLUSION: In many aspects, the present data agree with results of studies from other countries addressing the cooperation between GPs and OPs and/or other specialists. Many suggestions obtained in this study are practical and could be implemented into daily routine. Future quantitative research is required to better assess the relative weight of the suggestions presented here.
Authors: P D M de Buck; R J van Amstel; P C Buijs; J H W Maasen; F J H van Dijk; J M W Hazes; T P M Vliet Vlieland Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Marianna Virtanen; Jussi Vahtera; Jaana Pentti; Teija Honkonen; Marko Elovainio; Mika Kivimäki Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Dirk Moßhammer; Martina Michaelis; Jakob Mehne; Stefan Wilm; Monika A Rieger Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Susanne Voelter-Mahlknecht; Jan M Stratil; Rainer Kaluscha; Gert Krischak; Monika A Rieger Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Christine Preiser; Eva Rothermund; Andrea Wittich; Harald Gündel; Monika A Rieger Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Eva Rothermund; Martina Michaelis; Marc N Jarczok; Elisabeth M Balint; Rahna Lange; Stephan Zipfel; Harald Gündel; Monika A Rieger; Florian Junne Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 3.390