CE Module: Return on Investment of Workplace Wellness: Evidence From a Long-Term Care Company

Background: Workplace wellness programs (WWPs) are increasingly promoted by businesses and governments as an important strategy to improve workers’ overall health and well-being and to reduce health care and other organizational costs. Few studies have evaluated WWPs in small businesses to provide evidence on the potential return-on-investment (ROI) that WWPs might yield. This study aimed to fill this gap by presenting a quasi-experimental, ROI analysis of a WWP in a small company. Methods: This observational quasi-experimental study evaluated economic outcomes of a multicomponent WWP implemented by a small long-term care company. The company provided approximately 2 years of de-identified, individualized data on its employees for 2013–2015. There were 116 WWP participants and 323 nonparticipants. Difference-in-differences models were used to evaluate the program using organizational costs and ROI estimates. Findings: The estimated program cost was $132.692 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [$112.957, $156.101]) per participant and the estimated organizational costs savings were $210.342 (95% CI: [−4354.095, 2002.890]). The WWP achieved an ROI of $0.585 (95% CI: [−$35.095, $14.103]) per participant. Although not statistically significant, the results suggest that the WWP saved $1.585 for every $1 invested. Conclusions/Application to Practice: These results suggest that the evaluated WWP yielded a positive, although nonsignificant, ROI estimate. While ROI is still one of the most common evaluation metrics used in workplace wellness, few studies present ROI estimates of WWPs in small companies. Given policy efforts to promote WWPs in small businesses, there is a need to conduct high-quality ROI analyses for WWPs in smaller companies.

Download Full-text

Audit Feedback Interventions to Address High-Risk Prescriptions in Long-Term Care Homes: A Costing Study and Return on Investment Analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-15730/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Kednapa Thavorn ◽

Srishti Kumar ◽

Catherine Reis ◽

Jonathan Lam ◽

Gail Dobell ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Return On Investment ◽

Long Term Care ◽

Cost Savings ◽

Audit And Feedback ◽

Health Staff ◽

Term Care ◽

Total Cost ◽

Intervention Cost ◽

Costing Study

Abstract Background: Audit and feedback is a common implementation strategy, but little literature describes its costs. ‘MyPractice’ is an audit and feedback initiative produced by Ontario Health, the provincial agency tasked with supporting quality of care. This study sought to estimate the costs of ‘MyPractice’ and assess whether the financial benefit of ‘MyPractice’ offsets those costs. Methods: We conducted a costing study from the perspective of the government of Ontario, which funds both Ontario Health and necessary healthcare costs for people living in long-term care (LTC) homes in the province. Total cost of ‘MyPractice’ was calculated as the sum of the costs of producing and disseminating the reports (covering three report releases) which were obtained from Ontario Health staff interviews and document reviews. Return on investment (ROI) was calculated as the ratio of net cost-savings and the intervention cost. Net cost-savings were estimated as the reduction in the costs of antipsychotics incurred by LTC home residents attributable to ‘MyPractice’ reports. Results: Total intervention costs were C$223,691 (C$838 per physician and C$74,564 per release). Costs incurred during the development phase accounted for 74% of the total cost (C$166,117), while implementation costs for three report releases were responsible for 26% of the total costs (C$57,575). The ROI for every C$1 spent on the ‘MyPractice’ intervention was 1.22 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.61) for three report releases. Conclusion: ‘My Practice’ report offers a good return on investment and the value for money increases if physicians sign up and view the reports.

Download Full-text

Working With Resistance and Encouraging Buy-In to New Programs

Perspectives on Gerontology ◽

10.1044/gero16.1.18 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. 18-21

Author(s):

Sara Joffe

Keyword(s):

Long Term Care ◽

Term Care ◽

Optimal Outcomes ◽

Speech Language Pathologist

In order to best meet the needs of older residents in long-term care settings, clinicians often develop programs designed to streamline and improve care. However, many individuals are reluctant to embrace change. This article will discuss strategies that the speech-language pathologist (SLP) can use to assess and address the source of resistance to new programs and thereby facilitate optimal outcomes.

Download Full-text

Feeding Dependency Issues in the Long-Term Care Environment

Perspectives on Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia) ◽

10.1044/sasd10.1.19 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. 19-24

Author(s):

Carol Winchester ◽

Cathy Pelletier ◽

Pete Johnson

Keyword(s):

Long Term Care ◽

Term Care ◽

Care Environment

Download Full-text

Communication Disordered: Program Implementation in Long-Term Care

Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups ◽

10.1044/persp1.sig15.64 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 1 (15) ◽

pp. 64-67

Author(s):

George Barnes ◽

Joseph Salemi

Keyword(s):

Program Implementation ◽

Long Term Care ◽

Family Satisfaction ◽

Regulatory Compliance ◽

Care Staff ◽

Term Care ◽

Staff Members ◽

Change Policy

The organizational structure of long-term care (LTC) facilities often removes the rehab department from the interdisciplinary work culture, inhibiting the speech-language pathologist's (SLP's) communication with the facility administration and limiting the SLP's influence when implementing clinical programs. The SLP then is unable to change policy or monitor the actions of the care staff. When the SLP asks staff members to follow protocols not yet accepted by facility policy, staff may be unable to respond due to confusing or conflicting protocol. The SLP needs to involve members of the facility administration in the policy-making process in order to create successful clinical programs. The SLP must overcome communication barriers by understanding the needs of the administration to explain how staff compliance with clinical goals improves quality of care, regulatory compliance, and patient-family satisfaction, and has the potential to enhance revenue for the facility. By taking this approach, the SLP has a greater opportunity to increase safety, independence, and quality of life for patients who otherwise may not receive access to the appropriate services.

Download Full-text