Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Coole, Carol; Nouri, Fiona; Potgieter, Iskra; Watson, Paul J.; Thomson, Louise; Hampton, Rob; Drummond, Avril (2015)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: BMC Family Practice
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Statement of fitness for work, Family Practice, Research Article, Implementation, Sickness certification, Achievability, Recommendations, Fit note
Background: Although the UK fit note has been broadly welcomed as a tool to facilitate return to work, difficulties and uncertainties have resulted in wide variation in its use. Agreement on what constitutes the ‘ideal’ fit note from the perspective of all stakeholders is needed to inform best practice. A recent Delphi study conducted by the authors reached consensus on 67 recommendations for best practice in fit note use for employed patients. However, such recommendations are not necessarily followed in practice. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the perceived achievability of implementing these Delphi recommendations with a further reference panel of stakeholders.\ud Methods: Potential participants were identified by the research team and study steering group. These included representatives of employers, government departments, trades unions, patient organisations, general and medical practitioners and occupational health organisations who were believed to have the knowledge and experience to comment on the recommendations. The consensus Delphi statements were presented to the participants on-line. Participants were invited to comment on whether the recommendations were achievable, and what might hinder or facilitate their use in practice. Free text comments were combined with comments made in the Delphi study that referred to issues of feasibility or practicality. These were synthesised and analysed thematically.\ud Results: Twelve individuals representing a range of stakeholder groups participated. Many of the recommendations were considered achievable, such as improved format and use of the electronic fit note, completion of all fields, better application and revision of guidance and education in fit note use. However a number of obstacles to implementation were identified. These included: legislation governing the fit note and GP contracts; the costs and complexity of IT systems and software; the limitations of the GP consultation; unclear roles and responsibilities for the funding and delivery of education, guidance and training for all stakeholders, and the evaluation of practice.\ud Conclusions: This study demonstrated that although many recommendations for the ideal fit note are considered achievable, there are considerable financial, legal, organisational and professional obstacles to be overcome in order for the recommendations to be implemented successfully.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Her Majesty's Government. Improving health and work: changing lives, The government's response to Dame Carol Black's review of the health of Britain's working-age population. London: The Stationery Office; 2008.
    • 2. Health W, Directorate W-b. Reforming the Medical Statement: Government response to the consultation on draft regulations, The Social Security [Medical Evidence] and the Statutory Sick Pay [Medical Evidence] [Amendment] Regulations. London: Department for Work and Pensions; 2010.
    • 3. Shiels C, Hillage J, Pollard E, Gabbay M. An evaluation of the Statement of Fitness for Work (fit note): quantitative survey of fit notes. London: DWP Research Report No 841; 2013.
    • 4. Lalani M, Meadows P, Metcalf H, Rolfe H. Evaluation of the Statement of Fitness for Work: qualitative research with employers and employees. London: DWP Research Report No 797; 2012.
    • 5. Engineering Employers Federation/Jelf. Sickness Absence and Rehabilitation Survey 2014. http://www.eef.org.uk/resources-and-knowledge/research-andintelligence/industry-reports/sickness-absence-survey-2014-sponsored-by-jelf. Accessed October 2015.
    • 6. Kotze E. Employers' views on the fit note. Occup Med. 2014;64:577-9.
    • 7. Fylan B, Fylan F, Caveney L. An evaluation of the Statement of Fitness for Work: qualitative research with General Practitioners. London: DWP Research Report No 780; 2011.
    • 8. Chenery V. An evaluation of the Statement of Fitness for Work (fit note): a survey of employees. London: DWP Research Report No 840; 2013.
    • 9. Department for Work and Pensions. Electronic fit note (eMed) - Fact Sheet for GPs. London: DWP; 2013. http://www.gpone.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/ documents/1000/Electronic%20fit%20note%20%28eMed%29%20%20fact% 20sheet%20for%20GPs.pdf.
    • 10. Coole C, Drummond A, Watson PJ, Nouri F, Potgieter I. Getting the Best from the Fit Note: Investigating the Use of the Statement of Fitness for Work. Wigston: Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. www.iosh.co.uk/ fitnote
    • 11. Cohen D, Khan S, Allen J, Sparrow N. Shifting attitudes: the National Education Programme for work and health. Occup Med. 2012;62:371-4.
    • 12. Brijnath B, Mazza D, Singh N. Stakeholder perspectives on the new sickness certificate in Victoria: Results from a mixed-methods qualitative study. Aust Health Rev. 2015. doi: 10.1071/AH14136. [Epub ahead of print].
    • 13. Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Palda VA, Lemieux-Charles L, Grimshaw JM. How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implement Sci. 2011;6:26.
    • 14. Nilsing E, Soderberg E, Oberg B. Sickness certificates in Sweden: did the new guidelines improve their quality? BMC Public Health. 2012;12:907.
    • 15. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77-101.
    • 16. Black C, Frost D. Health at work: an independent review of sickness absence. London: TSO; 2011.
    • 17. Fit for Work guidance. Department for Work and Pensions. https:// www.gov.uk/government/collections/fit-for-work-guidance
    • 18. Henderson M, Madan I. Mental Health and Work, Chapter 10 page 160 in Davies, S.C, “Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2013, Public Mental Health Priorities: Investing in the Evidence”. London: Department of Health; 2014.
    • 19. Department for Work and Pensions. Getting the most out of the fit note: guidance for GPs. London: TSO; 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/465918/fit-note-gpsguidance.pdf. Accessed October 2015.
    • 20. British Medical Association. General practice in the UK - background briefing. Press briefing papers. http://bma.org.uk/news-views-analysis/mediacentre/press-briefing-papers
    • 21. General Medical Services Contracts - Legislation. http:// www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/291/pdfs/uksi_20040291_en.pdf. Accessed October 2015.
    • 22. Health, Work and Well-being Directorate. Reforming the medical statement, Consultation on draft regulations. London: Department for Work and Pensions (DWP); 2009. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ 20110218135832/http://dwp.gov.uk/docs/reforming-the-medical-statementconsultation-28may2009.pdf. Accessed October 2015.
    • 23. Krohne K, Brage S. New rules meet established sickness certification practice: a focus-group study on the introduction of functional assessments in Norwegian primary care. Scand J Prim Care. 2007;25(3):172-7.
    • 24. Krohne K, Brage S. How GPs in Norway conceptualise functional ability. Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58(557):835-6.
    • 25. Nilsing E, Soderberg E, Normelli H, Oberg B. Description of functioning in sickness certificates. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(5):508-16.
    • 26. Kosny A, Brijnath B, Singh N, Allen A, Collie A, Ruseckaite R, et al. Uncomfortable bedfellows: employer perspectives on general practitioners' role in the return to work process. Pol Pract Health Safety. 2015;13(1):65-76.
    • 27. Eakin JM, MacEachen E, Clarke J. Playing it smart with return to work: small workplace experience under Ontarios's policy of self-reliance and early return. Pol Pract Health Safety. 2003;1(2):19-42.
    • 28. Wainwright E, Wainwright D, Keogh E, Eccleston C. Fit for purpose? Using the fit note with patients with chronic pain: a qualitative study. B J Gen Pract. 2011;61:729-30.
    • 29. Welsh VK, Mallen CD, Wynne-Jones G, Jinks C. Exploration of GPs' views and use of the fit note: a qualitative study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2012;62:e363-9.
    • 30. Starfield B. Toward international primary care reform. Can Med Assoc J. 2009;180(11):1091-2.
    • 31. Gilbert F, Denis J-L, Lamothe L, Beaulieu M-D, D'amour D, Goudreau J. Reforming primary healthcare: from public policy to organizational change. J Health Organ Manag. 2015;29(1):92-110.
    • 32. Grimshaw J, Ward J, Eccles M. Getting research into practice. In: Penchon D, Guest C, Melzer D, Muir Gray JA, editors. Oxford Handbook of Public Health Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
    • 33. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP. Is evidence-based implementation of evidencebased care possible? Med J Aust. 2004;180(6):S50.
    • 34. Eccles PM, Armstrong D, Baker R, Cleary K, Davies H, Davies S, et al. An implementation research agenda. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):18.
    • 35. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, MacFarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quart. 2004;82(4):581-629.
    • 36. Rogers E. The Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 2003.
    • 37. Argyris C, Schon D. Organisational Learning. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley; 1996.
    • 38. Ward V, House A, Hamer S. Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14(3):156-64.
    • 39. Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw JE, Cheater F, Flottorp S, et al. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Library. 2009; Issue 3, 2010:CD005470. doi: 10 14651858.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article