创伤后应激障碍残疾检查报告:退伍军人健康管理局和合同审查员的比较。

A. W. Meisler, M. Gianoli
{"title":"创伤后应激障碍残疾检查报告:退伍军人健康管理局和合同审查员的比较。","authors":"A. W. Meisler, M. Gianoli","doi":"10.12788/fp.0225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\nAn enormous increase in disability claims for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has occurred over the past decade. To meet the demand for examinations required to determine diagnosis, causation, and impairment, the US Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has increasingly relied on contract examiners. Despite anecdotal reports of poor-quality examinations by contractors, no systematic study comparing VA and contract examinations has been reported.\n\n\nMethods\nData from 113 initial PTSD examination reports were coded and rated on variables related to content and quality. Administrative disability decisions rendered by VHA were identified and coded independently.\n\n\nResults\nContract examinations reported more symptoms and a greater degree of impairment, resulting in higher VHA disability ratings compared with VHA examiner reports. Contractor examinations were rated as having poorer quality than were VHA examinations on 2 of 3 metrics and included several examination reports that contained no relevant history or discussion required to support opinions about diagnosis or impairment.\n\n\nConclusions\nThe findings provide the first systematic evidence of greater symptom/impairment reporting and poorer overall quality in contract examinations for PTSD disability claims compared with those conducted by VHA examiners, with resulting differential outcomes in VHA disability ratings. The findings have implications for the quality, integrity, and reliability of the VHA PTSD disability claims process and support the need for program oversight, examiner training, and quality assurance.","PeriodicalId":94009,"journal":{"name":"Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PTSD Disability Examination Reports: A Comparison of Veterans Health Administration and Contract Examiners.\",\"authors\":\"A. W. Meisler, M. Gianoli\",\"doi\":\"10.12788/fp.0225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background\\nAn enormous increase in disability claims for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has occurred over the past decade. To meet the demand for examinations required to determine diagnosis, causation, and impairment, the US Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has increasingly relied on contract examiners. Despite anecdotal reports of poor-quality examinations by contractors, no systematic study comparing VA and contract examinations has been reported.\\n\\n\\nMethods\\nData from 113 initial PTSD examination reports were coded and rated on variables related to content and quality. Administrative disability decisions rendered by VHA were identified and coded independently.\\n\\n\\nResults\\nContract examinations reported more symptoms and a greater degree of impairment, resulting in higher VHA disability ratings compared with VHA examiner reports. Contractor examinations were rated as having poorer quality than were VHA examinations on 2 of 3 metrics and included several examination reports that contained no relevant history or discussion required to support opinions about diagnosis or impairment.\\n\\n\\nConclusions\\nThe findings provide the first systematic evidence of greater symptom/impairment reporting and poorer overall quality in contract examinations for PTSD disability claims compared with those conducted by VHA examiners, with resulting differential outcomes in VHA disability ratings. The findings have implications for the quality, integrity, and reliability of the VHA PTSD disability claims process and support the need for program oversight, examiner training, and quality assurance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94009,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12788/fp.0225\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12788/fp.0225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景在过去十年中,因创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)提出的残疾索赔大幅增加。为了满足确定诊断、因果关系和损伤所需的检查需求,美国退伍军人事务部退伍军人健康管理局(VHA)越来越依赖合同检查员。尽管有关于承包商检查质量差的传闻报告,但尚未报告对VA和合同检查进行比较的系统研究。方法对113份PTSD初始检查报告的数据进行编码,并根据与内容和质量相关的变量进行评分。VHA做出的行政残疾决定是独立识别和编码的。结果与VHA检查报告相比,合同检查报告的症状更多,损伤程度更大,导致VHA残疾评级更高。承包商检查在3个指标中的2个指标上被评为质量比VHA检查差,其中包括几份检查报告,这些报告不包含支持诊断或损伤意见所需的相关历史或讨论。结论与VHA检查人员进行的检查相比,这些发现首次提供了系统证据,证明PTSD残疾索赔的合同检查中有更多的症状/损伤报告和较差的整体质量,从而导致VHA残疾评级的差异结果。这些发现对VHA创伤后应激障碍残疾索赔流程的质量、完整性和可靠性有影响,并支持项目监督、考官培训和质量保证的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
PTSD Disability Examination Reports: A Comparison of Veterans Health Administration and Contract Examiners.
Background An enormous increase in disability claims for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has occurred over the past decade. To meet the demand for examinations required to determine diagnosis, causation, and impairment, the US Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has increasingly relied on contract examiners. Despite anecdotal reports of poor-quality examinations by contractors, no systematic study comparing VA and contract examinations has been reported. Methods Data from 113 initial PTSD examination reports were coded and rated on variables related to content and quality. Administrative disability decisions rendered by VHA were identified and coded independently. Results Contract examinations reported more symptoms and a greater degree of impairment, resulting in higher VHA disability ratings compared with VHA examiner reports. Contractor examinations were rated as having poorer quality than were VHA examinations on 2 of 3 metrics and included several examination reports that contained no relevant history or discussion required to support opinions about diagnosis or impairment. Conclusions The findings provide the first systematic evidence of greater symptom/impairment reporting and poorer overall quality in contract examinations for PTSD disability claims compared with those conducted by VHA examiners, with resulting differential outcomes in VHA disability ratings. The findings have implications for the quality, integrity, and reliability of the VHA PTSD disability claims process and support the need for program oversight, examiner training, and quality assurance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Case of Metastatic Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Masked as Suspected Hepatic Abscesses. 3D Printing for the Development of Palatal Defect Prosthetics. EBER-Negative, Double-Hit High-Grade B-Cell Lymphoma Responding to Methotrexate Discontinuation. Improving Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection for Colorectal Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Potential Impact of USPS Mail Delivery Delays on Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1