Table 6 Positive and negative features of the program implementation for various parties concerned
| Parties involved | Positive features of program implementation | Negative features |
|---|---|---|
| Decision-makers | ||
| Management of Socio-Medical Department |
More public support Meets ministry requirements Fewer appeals and complaints |
(Initial) loss of production Research takes time |
| Implementers | ||
| (Regional) managers |
Increased quality Fewer complaints |
Loss of production, possibly temporary Appeals are not reduced |
| (Regional) staff physicians |
Better-quality assessments More transparent decisions Easier test procedure to check reports |
Guidelines must not be rigid Legal status of guidelines: implication for appeals? |
| Users | ||
| Insurance physicians |
Useful guidelines and EBM information Guidelines with instruments tailored to IPs in practice Focus on quality and content Scope for professional assessment maintained |
Learning a new approach takes time; integration in personal routine is an effort Stricter requirements made regarding examination and reporting Will the extra workload be appraised and supported by staff and management? Legal status of guidelines: implication for appeals? |
| Concerned | ||
| Claimants | More thorough and uniform claim assessment | Longer, more structured consultations (not necessarily a drawback) |
| Researchers | ||
| Experts | Influence on content | Time input |
