 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the items in CATOH have been extensively tested and published in the
peer reviewed literature. Reference is made to the first
page of this web resource for the citations.
However
some amendments have since been made and now its additional use as a formative
assessment tool for trainees is being advocated. Hence feedback on the current
version of CATOH would be welcome by emailing me at:
Raymond[dot]Agius[at]Manchester[dot]ac[dot[uk]
(expressed
in this way to try to exclude pesky spamming robots)
Preferably
please use the form below (at the bottom of this page).
THE
CURRENT VERSION (2b) OF CATOH (Correspondence Assessment/Audit Tool in/for
Occupational Health):
Name
of physician being audited / trainee being assessed or else any confidential
identifying number:
Name
of auditing physician / trainee’s assessor:
Date
of assessment:
Other
relevant information e.g. OHS, clinic etc:
MODE
OF SELECTION OF LETTER (Please tick, circle, or underline one):
A.
Chosen by trainee / physician being audited / assessed:
B.
Chosen by assessor / auditor
C.
Random
How?:
(e.g.
Specify sampling frame:- time interval, etc)
Reference
and provenance OF LETTER:
Reference
number:
Date
of letter:
Is
it a follow up letter?
(Please do not include any patient / subject
identifier)
Nature
of addressee (Please tick, circle, or
underline one):
Manager
(‘Line’ or HR):
Other
doctor:
Copied
to patient ? :
Other
(please specify)
Nature
of original referral (Please tick,
circle, or underline one):
Management
Self
Routine
health surveillance
Pre-employment
Other
(please specify)
NOTE:
If this is part of a wider audit other information might need to be recorded
e.g.
Date
of receipt of letter of referral:
Date
of first appointment offered to patient/worker:
Date
of consultation:
Date
of letter:
Compliance
(if applicable) with any explicit consent policy:
Other (local) adaptations:
ITEMS
TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE AUDIT/ FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:
1.
Is the nature and reason of the referral determining the letter clear?
2.
Is the workplace, occupation, and occupational context i.e. relevant
exposures / work demands of the patient specified?
3.
Is there a clear and valid statement of current fitness for work?
4.
Are all the domains (of attendance, performance and safety) where
relevant to health issues adequately addressed?
5.
Is there a clear and valid statement of the likely date of return to
work?
6.
Is there a clear and valid statement of future degree of fitness for work
or residual disability?
7.
Is there a clear and valid statement on whether work could be affecting /
have affected the patient’s health?
8.
Are there clear and valid rehabilitation (or workplace adjustment) recommendation(s)?
9.
Is there evidence of an explicit response to any other appropriate
patient’s or referring manager’s question(s) being answered? (eg about DDA)
10.
Is there reference to an appropriate patient follow up plan?
11.
Is there reference to an appropriate past or future workplace assessment?
12.
Is there evidence of the letter being copied to or its content shared
with the patient?
13.
Is other significant information omitted?
14.
Is there irrelevant (or indiscreet) information?
15.
Is the letter well structured and clear to understand?
FEEDBACK
ON VERSION (2b) OF CATOH (Correspondence Assessment/Audit Tool in/for
Occupational Health):
Name of respondent
(optional but preferable):
Status: Trained
occupational physician / trainee / other (please specify)
Date:
Feedback based on perusing
the document (not necessarily applying it).
Do you agree that as far
as appropriate and feasible the same tool should be used both for purposes of
audit and for formative assessment of trainees?
Yes / No / don’t know
Any other comments on the
‘rationale’ or on CATOH itself:
Feedback based on using
CATOH:
Did you use CATOH as an
audit tool?
Yes / No
If yes: How many
physicians were involved?
How many letters / reports were audited?
Did you use CATOH as a
formative assessment tool for trainees? Yes
/ No
If yes: How many trained
physicians were involved?
How many trainees were involved?
How many letters / reports were audited?
Are you able to make a
comparison between CATOH and SAIL(OH)1 as formative assessment tools for
trainees? Yes / No
If yes, would you say that
they are both equally fit for this purpose?
Yes / No
If no, which would you
rank as generally the better of the two? (please specify)
Feedback on the specific
CATOH questions:
Please provide any
specific feedback you wish on the 15 CATOH questions below, citing the
relevant question number.
In particular please state
whether you feel that any of the questions are likely to be redundant in most
cases, and should therefore be removed. Please give reasons if you can. (This will be helpful in simplifying CATOH.)
You are welcome to provide
further comment or other feedback.
Thank you very much,
Raymond Agius
This page is:
http://www.agius.com/hew/catoh.htm
Raymond Agius © Copyright 1995-2010
Return
to the audit start page or the alphabetical
Index
of Resources