Advertisement

Do Health Service Use and Return-to-Work Outcomes Differ with GPs’ Injured-Worker Caseload?

  • Danielle Mazza
  • Bianca Brijnath
  • Mary Alice O’Hare
  • Rasa Ruseckaite
  • Agnieszka Kosny
  • Alex Collie
Article
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose To determine whether healthcare use and return-to-work (RTW) outcomes differ with GPs’ injured-worker caseload. Methods Retrospective analyses of the Compensation Research Database, which captures approximately 85% of all injured worker claims in Victoria, Australia was conducted. Four injured-worker caseload groups were examined that represented the 25th, 50th, 75th, and 100th percentiles of claimants seen per GP over the 8-year study period (2003–2010): (i) 1–13 claimants; (ii) 14–26 claimants; (iii) 27–48 claimants; and (iv) 49+ claimants (total claims, n = 124,342; total GPs, n = 9748).The characteristics of claimants in each caseload group, as well as the influence of caseload on three outcomes relevant to RTW (weekly compensation paid, work incapacity days, medical-and-like costs), were examined. Results Distinct profiles for high versus low caseload groups emerged. High caseload GPs treated significantly more men in blue collar occupations and issued significantly more ‘alternate duties’ certificates. Conversely, low caseload GPs treated significantly more women in white collar occupations, predominantly for mental health injuries, and issued significantly more ‘unfit-for-work’ certificates. Few significant differences were found between the two intermediate GP caseload groups. High caseload was associated with significantly greater medical-and-like costs, however, no caseload group differences were detected for weekly compensation paid or duration of time-off-work. Conclusions Training GPs who have a low injured-worker caseload in workers’ compensation processes, utilising high caseload GPs in initiatives involving peer-to-peer support, or system changes where employers are encouraged to provide preventive or rehabilitative support in the workplace may improve RTW outcomes for injured workers.

Keywords

General practice Return to work Workers’ compensation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Maria de Leon-Santiago for her contribution to the drafting of this manuscript.

Funding

This project was funded by the WorkSafe Victoria and the Transport Accident Commission via the Institute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research (ISCRR).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

DM and BB have received funding from ISCRR for subsequent research studies. RR and AC were employed by ISCRR at the time the study was conducted. MO’H and AK declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Safe Work Australia. Key work health and safety statistics, Australia, 2014. Canberra, ACT: Safe Work Australia; 2014.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Safe Work Australia. Key work health and safety statistics, Australia, 2015. Canberra, ACT: Safe Work Australia; 2015.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paul K, Geithner E, Moser K. Latent deprivation among people who are employed, unemployed, or out of the labor force. J Psychol. 2009;143(5):477–491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartley M, Sacker A, Clarke P. Employment status, employment conditions, and limiting illness: prospective evidence from the British household panel survey 1991–2001. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(6):501–506.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waddell G, Burton A. Is work good for your health and well-being? Norwich: TSO; 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thomas C, Benzeval M, Stansfeld A. Employment transitions and mental health: an analysis from the British household panel survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(3):243–249.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kosny A, MacEachen E, Ferrier S, Chambers L. The role of health care providers in long term and complicated workers’ compensation claims. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(4):582–590.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Collie A, Ruseckaite R, Brijnath B, Kosny A, Mazza D. Sickness certification of workers compensation claimants by general practitioners in Victoria, 2003–2010. Med J Aust. 2013;199(7):480–483.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mazza D, Brijnath B, Singh N, Kosny A, Ruseckaite R, Collie A. General practitioners and sickness certification for injury in Australia. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16(100):1–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen D, Aylward M, Rollnick S. Inside the fitness for work consultation: a qualitative study. Occup Med. 2009;59(5):347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wynne-Jones G, Mallen C, Main C, Dunn K. Sickness certification and the GP: what really happens in practice? Fam Pract. 2010;27(3):344–350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen D, Marfell N, Webb K, Robling M, Aylward M. Managing long-term worklessness in primary care: a focus group study. Occup Med. 2010;60(2):121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chowdhury M, Dagash H, Pierro A. A systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome. Br J Surg. 2007;94(2):145–161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gandjour A, Bannenberg A, Lauterbach K. Threshold volumes associated with higher survival in health care. A systematic review. Med Care. 2003;41(10):1129–1141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Halm E, Lee C, Chassin M. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(6):511–520.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prang KH, Hassani-Mahmooei B, Collie A. Compensation Research Database: population-based injury data for surveillance, linkage and mining. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9(1):456.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Safe Work Australia. Work-related mental disorders profile, 2015. Canberra, ACT: Safe Work Australia; 2015.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Safe Work Australia. Australian work-related injury experience by sex and age, 2009–10. Canberra, ACT: Safe Work Australia; 2012.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ruseckaite R. Unfit for work or alternate duties: what predicts the type of medical certificate for injured workers in Victoria, Australia [Abstract]. Int J Disabil Manag. 2014;9(e6):1.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brijnath B, Mazza D, Singh N, Kosny A, Ruseckaite R, Collie A. Mental health claims management and return to work: qualitative insights from Melbourne, Australia. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(4):766–776.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Safe Work Australia. The cost of work-related injury and illness for Australian employers, workers and the community: 2012–13. Canberra, ACT: Safe Work Australia; 2015.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kiesslling A, Arrelov B. Sickness certification as a complex professional and collaborative activity—a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iles RA, Davidson M, Taylor NF. Psychosocial predictors of failure to return to work in non-chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65(8):507–517.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Storheim K, Brox JI, Holm I, Bo K. Predictors of return to work in patients sick listed for sub-acute low back pain: a 12-month follow-up study. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37(6):365–371.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bunzli S, Singh N, Mazza D, Collie A, Kosny A, Ruseckaite R, et al. Fear of (re)injury and return to work following compensable injury: qualitative insights from key stakeholders in Victoria, Australia. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):313.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. Year Book Australia, 2012. Catalogue 1301.0. Canberra, ACT: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS); 2012.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brijnath B, Mazza D, Kosny A, Bunzli S, Singh N, Ruseckaite R, et al. Is clinician refusal to treat an emerging problem in injury compensation systems? BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009423.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Department for Work and Pensions and Department of Health. Work, health and disability green paper: improving lives. London: UK Government; 2017.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Love T, Dowell A, Salmond C, Crampton P. Quality indicators and variation in primary care: modellling GP referral patterns. Fam Pract. 2004;21(2):160–165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General Practice, School of Primary Health CareMonash UniversityNotting HillAustralia
  2. 2.National Ageing Research InstituteParkvilleAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive MedicineMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Institute for Work and HealthTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Insurance Work and Health Group, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations