You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Items and reliability of the revised version of the peer review-manual for quality assurance in work capacity evaluation (n = 325)

From: An instrument for quality assurance in work capacity evaluation: development, evaluation, and inter-rater reliability

Item no. Test question Percentage agreement rw (n = 325)
Quality domain: formal structure
 A.1 To what extent does the report structure complied with the requirements? 67.5% 0.19
 A.2 To what extent is the unified set form, consisting of cover and back banner page, used? 82.5% 0.89
Quality domain: clarity
 B.1 To what extent is the linguistic expression correct and unambiguous? 69.7% 0.27
 B.2 To what extent are technical terms and abbreviations that are essential for the understanding of the report explained? 50.5% 0.36
 B.3 To what extent is the specific social medicine terminology applied correctly? 68.1% 0.16
 B.4a To what extent are socio-legal implementations / conclusions omitted? 80.6% 0.29
Quality domain: transparency
 C.1 To what extent is the origin of medical information described? 53.8% 0.27
 C.2 To what extent does the report illustrated by which processes, methods and tools the medical results are collected? 66.0% 0.37
 C.3 To what extent does the report illustrated which measured values, reference ranges and graduations are basis of the medical assessment? 57.9% 0.30
Quality domain: completeness
 D.1 To what extent is the medical anamnesis depicted completely? 48.9% 0.27
 D.2a To what extent are medical findings documented to answer the social medicine report questions? 64.6% 0.31
 D.3 To what extent are ICD diagnosis illustrated with their functional limitations? 49.2% 0.45
 D.4a To what extent are complaints, diseases and functional limitations expressed by the insured included in the discharged summary? 46.2% 0.15
 D.5a To what extent are medical findings included in the discharged summary? 52.2% 0.22
 D.6a To what extent are functional limitations in relation to performance in working life evaluated? 52.7% 0.09
 D.7 To what extent are statements on previous therapy and future therapeutic options given? 39.8% 0.36
 D.8 To what extent are substantial differences in the work capacity evaluation compared to earlier medical reports explained? 79.9% 0.25
 D.9 To what extent are all social medicine report questions fully answered? 43.9% 0.17
Quality domain: medical-scientific principles
 E.1 To what extent is the widely accepted state of medical knowledge applied? 88.6% 0.27
 E.2 To what extent is the existing literature for work capacity evaluation of the German Pension applied? 65.6% 0.24
Quality domain: efficiency
 F.1 To what extent is the diagnostic investigation appropriate and necessary? 72.5% 0.20
 F.2 To what extent is the diagnostic investigation sufficient? 57.3% 0.22
Superordinate criterion: experts’ report confirmability
 Evaluate the confirmability of the medical report on the basis of the argumentation used. 47.3% 0.39
  1. Quality domains: four-point rating scale (no deficiencies, mild deficiencies, clear deficiencies, serious deficiencies); superordinate criterion: three-point rating scale (no argument interruptions; argument interruptions that can be bridged by the assessing peer; argument interruptions that cannot be bridged by the assessing peer); rw = Kendall’s coefficient of concordance W
  2. a items has been removed from the manual in agreement with the German Statutory Pension Insurance after this present inter-rater reliability study was completed