The cost of saying no: general practitioners' gatekeeping role in sickness absence certification

• Published in: BMC public health 2024-02, Vol.24 (1), p.439-11, Article 439
• Main Authors: Hoff, Eivor Hovde, Kraft, Kristian B, Moe, Cathrine F, Nylenna, Magne, Østby, Kristian A, Mykletun, Arnstein
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Attitude of Health Personnel; Capitation; Certification; Data collection; Decision analysis; Disability insurance; Employee benefits; Employees; Employers; Family physicians; Focus Groups; Forecasts and trends; Gatekeeping; General Practitioners; Humans; Illnesses; Incentives; Influence; Insurance applications; Interviews; Medical practices; Patients; Physicians (General practice); Qualitative analysis; Qualitative research; Referral and Consultation; Risk perception; Rural areas; Services; Sick Leave; Sickness absence; Wages & salaries; Work Capacity Evaluation; Worker absenteeism
• ISSN: 1471-2458; 1471-2458
• DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-17993-1

General practitioners (GPs) have an important gatekeeping role in the Norwegian sickness insurance system. This role includes limiting access to paid sick leave when this is not justified according to sick leave criteria. 85% of GPs in Norway operate within a fee-for-service system that incentivises short consultations and high service provision. In this qualitative study, we explore how GPs practise the gatekeeping role in sickness absence certification. Qualitative data was collected through six focus group interviews with 33 GPs, working in practices with a minimum of four practising GPs, in different geographical regions across Norway, including both urban and rural areas. Data was analysed using Braune and Clarke's thematic analysis approach. Our results indicate that GPs' sick-listing decisions are largely driven by patient demand and preferences for sick leave. GPs reported that they rarely overrule patient requests for sickness absence, including in cases where such requests conflict with the GPs' opinion of whether sick leave is justified or benefits the patient. The degree of effort made to limit unjustified or non-beneficial sick leave seems to depend on the GPs' available time and perceived risk of conflict with the patient. GPs generally expressed dissatisfaction with their role as certifiers of sickness absence. Our study suggests that GPs' decisions about sickness certification is largely driven by patient preferences. The GPs' gatekeeping function is limited to negotiations about grade and duration of absence spells.