BackgroundIn Belgium, the management of sick leave involves general practitioners (GPs), occupational health physicians (OPs) and social insurance physicians (SIPs). A dysfunctional relationship among these physicians can impede a patient’s ability to return to work. The objective of this study was to identify ways to improve these physicians’ mutual collaboration.MethodsTwo consensus techniques were successively performed among the three professional groups. Eight nominal groups (NGs) gathered 74 field practitioners, and a two-round Delphi process involved 32 stakeholders.ResultsFrom the results, it appears that two areas (reciprocal knowledge and evolution of the legal and regulatory framework) are objects of consensus among the three medical group that were surveyed. Information transfer, particularly electronic transfer, was stressed as an important way to improve. The consensual proposals regarding interdisciplinary collaboration indicate specific and practical changes to be implemented when professionals are managing workers who are on sick leave. The collaboration process appeared to be currently more problematic, but the participants correctly identified the need for common training.ConclusionsThe three physician groups all agree regarding several inter-physician collaboration proposals. The study also revealed a latent conflict situation among the analysed professionals that can arise from a lack of mutual recognition.Practical changes or improvements must be included in an extended framework that involves the different determinants of interdisciplinary collaboration that are shown by theoretical models. Collaboration is a product of the actions and behaviours of various partners, which requires reciprocal knowledge and trust; collaboration also implies political and economic structures that are led by public health authorities.

Manuscrit soumis à la rédaction le 9 septembre 2014 ; commentaires éditoriaux soumis aux auteurs le 16 mai 2015 ; accepté pour publication le 19 juin 2015 Résumé -Contexte : L'histoire de la médecine a acquis une place dans l'enseignement des sciences de la santé. Cet article, écrit par deux historiens travaillant dans le champ de la santé, questionne les manières d'écrire l'histoire de la médecine par des médecins à des fins péda-gogiques. Méthode : Les documents (n = 20) retenus pour le corpus documentaire sont analysés de manière ethnométhodologique. Résultats : Les auteurs identifient et explicitent sept règles de l'écriture du discours historique dans l'enseignement de l'histoire de la médecine. Les auteurs proposent d'autres règles qui pourraient actualiser les pratiques de l'enseignement de l'histoire dans les sciences de la santé. Conclusion : Se faisant, plusieurs pistes sont proposées pour la construction d'un discours historien porteur de savoir-être et de savoir-devenir. L'objectif est de poser les jalons d'une lecture critique des discours historiques écrits par les professionnels de la santé en mettant en avant le fondement idéologique et mythologique caractérisant l'histoire de la médecine telle qu'élaborée à l'intérieur de ce champ scientifique. Abstract -Background:The history of medicine is now part of the health sciences curriculum. This article was written by two historians working in the health field. In it, they challenge the ways in which physicians are writing down the history of medicine for pedagogical purposes. Material and method: The corpus of documents (n = 20) was analyzed according to ethnomethodological methods. Results: The authors identify eight rules in writing down the history of medicine. They also suggest other rules that could help bring the history of medicine up to date. Conclusions: The objective is to critically review the ideological and mythological premises underpinning the history of medicine today. Further proposals aimed at changing the pedagogical organization of the history of medicine are also suggested.Article publié par EDP Sciences 10 G. Absil et P. Govers