scholarly journals O2C.3 What predicts a secondary absence following return to work among workers’ compensation claimants in victoria? Results from a longitudinal cohort

2019 ◽  
Vol 76 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A16.2-A16
Author(s):  
Peter Smith
Keyword(s):  
Return To Work ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Longitudinal Cohort ◽  
Injury Type ◽  
Work Limitations ◽  
Independent Variables ◽  
Australian State ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
Absence From Work ◽  
Type Of Injury

Time taken to first return to work (RTW) is often a primary endpoint for studies among injured workers. However, studies using administrative workers’ compensation claims data have documented that a substantial proportion (approximately one half) of claimants will incur a subsequent period of wage replacement. Unfortunately, workers’ compensation data is limited in the information collected to better understand which claimants are more likely to have a subsequent absence from work. The objective of this study is to address this gap using a cohort of workers’ compensation claimants in the Australian state of Victoria.The sample for this study is drawn from a longitudinal cohort of workers’ compensation claimants (n=869). For the purpose of this analysis we focused on those claimants who had returned to work (self-reported) at the baseline interview, which was conducted approximately 4 months after the injury had occurred (n=372). Independent variables examined included if the respondent was working on full or partial duties, currently receiving health care for their injury, type of injury (musculoskeletal versus psychological), co-worker responses when they returned to work (measured using nine questions), and work limitations, measured using an abbreviated form of the work limitations questionnaire.A total of 205 respondents (55% of the sample) reported a subsequent absence from work when interviewed 6 months later. All independent variables, with the exception of injury type, were associated with subsequent absences from work. In a multivariable model, only working modified duties and greater limitations remained statistically significant.The results of the current study help inform our understanding of trajectories in RTW and factors, measured after the first RTW, which may be associated with a subsequent absence from work. These findings can be integrated into RTW programs to help more workers achieve sustainable RTW following a work injury.

scholarly journals Cohort profile: workers’ compensation in a changing Australian labour market: the return to work (RTW) study

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e016366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Dimitriadis ◽  
Anthony D LaMontagne ◽  
Rebbecca Lilley ◽  
Sheilah Hogg-Johnson ◽  
Malcolm Sim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Return To Work ◽  
Older Workers ◽  
Service Use ◽  
Psychological Injury ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Injury Type ◽  
Psychological Injuries ◽  
Australian State ◽  
Survey Responses

PurposeWorkers’ compensation claims for older workers and workers who have suffered psychological injury are increasing as a proportion of total claims in many jurisdictions. In the Australian state of Victoria, claims from both these groups are associated with higher than average wage replacement and healthcare expenditures. This cohort profile describes a longitudinal study which aims to investigate differences in the return to work (RTW) process for older workers compared with younger workers and claimants with musculoskeletal injuries compared with those with psychological injuries.ParticipantsThis prospective cohort study involved interviewing workers’ compensation claimants at three time points. The cohort was restricted to psychological and musculoskeletal claims. Only claimants aged 18 and over were recruited, with no upper age limit. A total of 869 claimants completed the baseline interview, representing 36% of the eligible claimant population. Ninety-one per cent of participants agreed at baseline to have their survey responses linked to administrative workers’ compensation data. Of the 869 claimants who participated at baseline, 632 (73%) took part in the 6-month follow-up interview, and 572 (66%) participated in the 12-month follow-up interview.Findings to dateInformation on different aspects of the RTW process and important factors that may impact the RTW process was collected at the three survey periods. At baseline, participants and non-participants did not differ by injury type or age group, but were more likely to be female and from the healthcare and social assistance industry. The probability of non-participation at follow-up interviews showed younger age was a statistically significant predictor of non-participation.Future plansAnalysis of the longitudinal cohort will identify important factors in the RTW process and explore differences across age and injury type groups. Ongoing linkage to administrative workers’ compensation data will provide information on wage replacement and healthcare service use into the future.

scholarly journals The Impact of Provider Choice on Workers' Compensation Costs and Outcomes

ILR Review ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Neumark ◽  
Peter S. Barth ◽  
Richard A. Victor
Keyword(s):  
Return To Work ◽  
Work Outcomes ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Provider Choice ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Recent Policy ◽  
Physical Recovery ◽  
Prior Relationship

Using survey data collected in 2002 and 2003 in California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Texas on workers injured 3 to 3.5 years earlier, coupled with information on the associated workers' compensation claims from the Workers Compensation Research Institute, the authors examine how provider choice in workers' compensation is related to costs and to workers' outcomes. They find that employee choice of the provider, by comparison with employer choice, was associated with higher costs and worse return-to-work outcomes. Although the same rate of physical recovery was found for both groups, workers who chose their providers reported higher satisfaction with medical care. The higher costs and worse return-to-work outcomes associated with employee choice arose largely when employees selected a new provider, rather than a provider with whom they had a pre-existing relationship. The findings lend some support to recent policy changes limiting workers' ability to choose a provider with whom they do not have a prior relationship.

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 12-13
Author(s):  
LuAnn Haley ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Complex Concept ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Return to Work After Primary Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652097542
Author(s):  
Eric D. Haunschild ◽  
Ron Gilat ◽  
Ophelie Lavoie-Gagne ◽  
Michael C. Fu ◽  
Tracy Tauro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Work Outcomes ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Work Intensity ◽  
Rates Of Return ◽  
Cuff Repair

Background: Rotator cuff tears are a prevalent pathology in injured workers, causing significant economic ramifications and time away from work. To date, published articles on work outcomes after rotator cuff repair have not been cumulatively assessed and analyzed. Purpose: To systematically review reports on return to work after rotator cuff repair and perform a meta-analysis on factors associated with improved work outcomes. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of return-to-work investigations was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Individual studies reporting rates of return to previous work with level of evidence 1 to 4 were independently screened by 2 authors for inclusion, and study quality was assessed using the Methodologic Index for Non-randomized Studies and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Work outcome data were synthesized and analyzed using random effects modeling to identify differences in rates of return to previous work as a function of operative technique, work intensity, and workers’ compensation status. Results: Thirteen retrospective investigations comprising 1224 patients who underwent rotator cuff repair met inclusion criteria for this investigation. Across all investigations, a weighted average of 62.3% of patients returned to previous level of work at 8.15 ± 2.7 months (mean ± SD) after surgery. Based on random effects modeling, higher rates of return to previous work were identified with decreasing work intensity ( P < .001), while rates were similar between open and arthroscopic repair technique ( P = .418) and between workers’ compensation and non–workers’ compensation cohorts ( P = .089). All shoulder pain and functional outcome assessments demonstrated significant improvements at final follow-up when compared with baseline across all investigations. Conclusion: The majority of injured workers undergoing rotator cuff repair return to previous work at approximately 8 months after surgery. Despite this, >35% of patients are unable to return to their previous work level after their repair procedure. Similar rates of return to work can be anticipated regardless of workers’ compensation status and operative technique, while patients in occupations with higher physical intensity experience inferior work outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document