10 years quality assurance of the dermatologist's procedure. ABD review board part II: 2003-2009

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorVoss, Heike
dc.contributor.authorElsner, Peter
dc.contributor.authorFartasch, Manige
dc.contributor.authorKoellner, Arno
dc.contributor.authorRichter, Gerhard
dc.contributor.authorRothe, Axel
dc.contributor.authorSchindera, Ingo
dc.contributor.authorSchwanitz, Hans Joachim
dc.contributor.authorSkudlik, Christoph
dc.contributor.authorStary, Alois
dc.contributor.authorWehrmann, Wolfgang
dc.contributor.authorWorm, Margitta
dc.contributor.authorJohn, Swen Malte
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-23T16:23:06Z-
dc.date.available2021-12-23T16:23:06Z-
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.issn16100379
dc.identifier.urihttps://osnascholar.ub.uni-osnabrueck.de/handle/unios/14417-
dc.description.abstractBackground: The dermatologist's procedure (''procedure for early detection of occupational skin diseases'') enables dermatologists to conduct the relevant diagnostics at the expenses of the statutory employers' liability insurance funds (UVT) if there is a possibility of a work-related skin disorder in an employee. Acceptance of this most relevant tool for secondary prevention in occupational dermatology in Germany is high and most dermatologists make careful use of this unparalleled privilege. However, there have been occasional complaints by the UVT, concerning overly extensive diagnostics. Consequently, the Task Force on Occupational and Environmental Dermatology (ABD) of the German Society of Dermatology set up a review board in May 1999. Results: Dermatologists' reports in question were submitted by the UVT to the review board and reviewed separately by two experienced occupational dermatologists both in the 1(st) period (1999-2003) and now in the second period (June 2003 - November 2009). The criticism of the reviewers was mostly directed towards the number of tests and an insufficient documentation in the dermatologist's report. There were 69 dermatologists' reports submitted to the review board (as compared to 155 in the 1(st) period). Conclusions: The decreased number of dermatologists' reports submitted could be a result of the review process itself. Other factors may include the optimization of the dermatologist's report with a better reimbursement as well as the recent publication of guidelines and continuous education in occupational dermatology with certification of more than 700 dermatologists. These measures of quality assurance are aimed to further optimize the dermatologist's procedure and to allow for improved and more rapid care for patients with occupational dermatoses by dermatologists.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
dc.relation.ispartofJOURNAL DER DEUTSCHEN DERMATOLOGISCHEN GESELLSCHAFT
dc.subjectALLERGENS
dc.subjectDERMATITIS
dc.subjectdermatologist's procedure
dc.subjectdermatologist's report
dc.subjectDermatology
dc.subjectoccupational dermatoses
dc.subjectquality management
dc.subjectreview board
dc.subjectsecondary prevention
dc.title10 years quality assurance of the dermatologist's procedure. ABD review board part II: 2003-2009
dc.typejournal article
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1610-0387.2010.07506.x
dc.identifier.isiISI:000285391600007
dc.description.volume9
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.startpage42
dc.description.endpage46
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-3449-1245
dc.contributor.researcheridW-7963-2018
dc.publisher.placeCOMMERCE PLACE, 350 MAIN ST, MALDEN 02148, MA USA
dcterms.isPartOf.abbreviationJ. Dtsch. Dermatol. Ges.
crisitem.author.deptUniversität Osnabrück-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0001-5406-9458-
crisitem.author.netidJoSw269-
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

8
Last Week
0
Last month
0
checked on May 19, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric