(1) Background: A new health care offer called ‘psychotherapeutic consultation in the workplace’ is an early and effective intervention for employees with common mental disorders. Although cost-effective, it lacks a broader roll-out. This might be attributable to undefined context, mechanisms of change, and a lack of communication; therefore, this study explores how the new model works and where problems occur. (2) Methods: Semi-structured interviews on motivation, expectations and experiences with 20 involved experts. Experts were members of the company health promotion team, service users, and cooperating mental health specialists. Analysis was conducted with ATLAS.ti. (3) Results: The conceptual framework comprises three main topics: (a) structured implementation concept; (b) persons involved, shaping the concept’s processes; (c) and meaning and function of the offer within the given context. Concerning (c) we found three potential areas of conflict: (1) intra-corporate conflicts, (2) conflicts between company and employee, (3) and conflicts between the company health promotion and the health care system. Category (c) comprises the offer’s core characteristics which were described as low-threshold and preventive. Furthermore, the offer was perceived as convenient in handling, confidential, and having immediate impact on a person’s well-being. (4) Conclusions: Here we define structures, address the needs of the involved persons, and communicate foreseeable areas of conflict influences whether the implementation of the intervention succeeds.

Background: Occupational health physicians are increasingly confronted with mental health issues at their workplace. Facing them, most of them feel insecure and not sufficiently trained. Employee’s mental well-being depends at the same time on individual and significantly on organizational variables. This complicates the physician’s position, since they have to serve many interests. The focus of the present study is to investigate what difficulties occupational health physicians face and how organizational culture and management influence their work. Methods: Interviews were conducted with N = 25 physicians as part of a training for basic mental health care. Interviews were interpreted using qualitative content analysis. Results: Working with mentally ill employees was difficult for the physicians interviewed. Many felt insecure managing and preventing mental health issues. A need for further education was observed. Environmental factors (organizational culture, management) have a strong impact on the work of an occupational health physician and highlight its systemic dimension. Even though many of our participants report a meanwhile more open attitude towards mental disorders at their workplace, on the level of direct contact to the management prevail descriptions of little acceptance and a high priority of economic outcomes. Conclusions: More education on topics of mental health is needed for occupational health physicians. Future trainings should consider the intertwined nature of their work and enable them in dealing consciously with other actors in the company. For enhancing employee’s mental well-being occupational health physicians could be granted a strengthened position in companies or be supported through more exchange with colleagues in other companies.