Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Manager Experiences with the Return to Work Process in a Large, Publically Funded, Hospital Setting: Walking a Fine Line

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose Previous research on the role of managers in the return to work (RTW) process has primarily been conducted in contexts where the workplace has declared organizational responsibility for the process. While this is a common scenario, in some countries, including Denmark, there is no explicit legal obligation on the workplace to accommodate RTW. The aim of this study was to gain knowledge about the potential roles and contributions of managers in supporting returning employees in a context where they have no legal obligation to actively support RTW. Methods Nineteen Danish hospital managers participated in a one-on-one interview or focus group discussions aimed at identifying barriers and facilitators for supporting employees in their RTW. Five individual interviews and two focus group discussions were conducted. Transcripts were analysed using thematic content analysis. Results Four main themes were identified: (1) ‘Coordinator and collaborator’; (2) ‘Dilemmas of the RTW policy enforcer’; (3) ‘The right to be sick and absent’; and (4) ‘Keep the machinery running…’. Our findings indicated that supervisors’ capacity to support returning workers was related to individual, communication, organizational, and policy factors. Instances were observed where supervisors faced the dilemma of balancing ethical and managerial principles with requirements of keeping staffing budgets. Conclusion Although it is not their legislative responsibility, Danish managers play a key role in the RTW process. As has been observed in other contexts, Danish supervisors struggle to balance considerations for the returning worker with those of their teams.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Denmark, most collective agreements state that, in case of a child’s first day of illness, employees have the right to one day of special leave with salary if the leave is compatible with the workplace and the work schedule.

  2. Accessible (in Danish) at http://bm.dk/da/Beskaeftigelsesomraadet/Et%20godt%20arbejdsliv/Sygefravaer/Mulighederklaering.aspx.

References

  1. van Oostrom SH, Driessen MT, de Vet HC, Franche RL, Schonstein E, Loisel P, et al. Workplace interventions for preventing work disability. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;2:CD006955.

  2. MacEachen E, Clarke J, Franche RL, Irvin E. Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32(4):257–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Franche RL, Baril R, Shaw W, Nicholas M, Loisel P. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):525–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Suadicani P, Olesen K, Bonde JP, Gyntelberg F. Psychosocial work conditions associated with sickness absence among hospital employees. Occup Med (Lond). 2014;64:503–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahlstrom L, Hagberg M, Dellve L. Workplace rehabilitation and supportive conditions at work: a prospective study. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(2):248–60.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Skakon J, Nielsen K, Borg V, Guzman J. Are leaders’ well-being, behaviours and style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of three decades of research. Work Stress. 2010;24(2):107–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nielsen ML, Rugulies R, Christensen KB, Smith-Hansen L, Kristensen TS. Psychosocial work environment predictors of short and long spells of registered sickness absence during a 2-year follow up. J Occup Environ Med. 2006;48(6):591–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cornelius LR, van der Klink JJL, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S. Prognostic factors of long term disability due to mental disorders: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):259–74.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Steenstra IA, Verbeek JH, Heymans MW, Bongers PM. Prognostic factors for duration of sick leave in patients sick listed with acute low back pain: a systematic review of the literature. Occup Environ Med. 2005;62(12):851–60.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nieuwenhuijsen K, Verbeek JHAM, de Boer AGEM, Blonk RWB, van Dijk FJH. Supervisory behaviour as a predictor of return to work in employees absent from work due to mental health problems. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(10):817–23.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnston V, Way K, Long MH, Wyatt M, Gibson L, Shaw WS. Supervisor Competencies for Supporting Return to Work: a Mixed-Methods Study. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(1):3–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. de Vries G, Koeter MW, Nabitz U, Hees HL, Schene AH. Return to work after sick leave due to depression; a conceptual analysis based on perspectives of patients, supervisors and occupational physicians. J Affect Disord. 2012;136(3):1017–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Haafkens JA, Kopnina H, Meerman MG, van Dijk FJ. Facilitating job retention for chronically ill employees: perspectives of line managers and human resource managers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:104.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Aas RW, Ellingsen KL, Lindoe P, Moller A. Leadership qualities in the return to work process: a content analysis. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(4):335–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Munir F, Yarker J, Hicks B, Donaldson-Feilder E. Returning employees back to work: developing a measure for Supervisors to Support Return to Work (SSRW). J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(2):196–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen D, Allen J, Rhydderch M, Aylward M. The return to work discussion: a qualitative study of the line manager conversation about return to work and the development of an educational programme. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(8):677–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lemieux P, Durand MJ, Hong QN. Supervisors’ perception of the factors influencing the return to work of workers with common mental disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(3):293–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wynne-Jones G, Buck R, Porteous C, Cooper L, Button LA, Main CJ, et al. What happens to work if you’re unwell? Beliefs and attitudes of managers and employees with musculoskeletal pain in a public sector setting. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(1):31–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wrapson W, Mewse AJ. Supervisors’ responses to sickness certification for an episode of low back pain: employees’ personal experiences. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(19–20):1728–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cunningham C, Doody C, Blake C. Managing low back pain: knowledge and attitudes of hospital managers. Occup Med (Lond). 2008;58(4):282–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Holmgren K, Dahlin Ivanoff S. Supervisors’ views on employer responsibility in the return to work process. A focus group study. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(1):93–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Young AE, Wasiak R, Roessler RT, McPherson KM, Anema JR, van Poppel MN. Return-to-work outcomes following work disability: stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):543–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tjulin A, MacEachen E, Stiwne EE, Ekberg K. The social interaction of return to work explored from co-workers experiences. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(21–22):1979–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Soklaridis S, Tang G, Cartmill C, Cassidy JD, Andersen J. “Can you go back to work?” Family physicians’ experiences with assessing patients’ functional ability to return to work. Can Fam Physician. 2011;57(2):202–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Holt H, Nilsson K. Arbejdsfastholdelse af skadelidte medarbejdere. Virksomheders rolle og erfaringer. [Job retention for injured Employees. The role and experience of enterprises] [Danish] The Danish National Centre for Social Research. 2013. http://www.sfi.dk/publications-4844.aspx?Action=1&NewsId=4212&PID=10056. Accessed 19 Nov 2014.

  26. Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33(1):77–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Morgan DL. The focus group handbook. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Johns G. Presenteeism in the workplace: a review and research agenda. J Organ Behav. 2010;31(4):519–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Seing I, MacEachen E, Stahl C, Ekberg K. Early-return-to-work in the context of an intensification of working life and changing employment relationships. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(1):74–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. MacEachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S, Chambers L. The, “toxic dose” of system problems: why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):349–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Eakin JM, MacEachen E, Clarke J. ‘Playing it smart’ with return to work: small workplace experience under Ontario’s policy of self-reliance and early return. Policy Pract Health Saf. 2003;1(2):19–41.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tjulin A, Maceachen E, Ekberg K. Exploring the meaning of early contact in return-to-work from workplace actors’ perspective. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(2):137–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dew K, Keefe V, Small K. ‘Choosing’ to work when sick: workplace presenteeism. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(10):2273–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Barnes MC, Buck R, Williams G, Webb K, Aylward M. Beliefs about common health problems and work: a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(4):657–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Buck R, Porteous C, Wynne-Jones G, Marsh K, Phillips CJ, Main CJ. Challenges to remaining at work with common health problems: what helps and what influence do organisational policies have? J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(4):501–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tarasuk V, Eakin JM. The problem of legitimacy in the experience of work-related back injury. Qual Health Res. 1995;5(2):204–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cunningham I, James P, Dibben P. Bridging the gap between rhetoric and reality: line managers and the protection of job security for ill workers in the modern workplace. Brit J Manage. 2004;15(3):273–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

MJ Stochkendahl, C Myburgh, AE Young and J Hartvigsen declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed written consent to be included in the study was obtained from all participants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nordic Institute of Chiropractic and Clinical Biomechanics, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark

    Mette Jensen Stochkendahl & Jan Hartvigsen

  2. Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark

    Corrie Myburgh & Jan Hartvigsen

  3. Center for Disability Research, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 71 Frankland Road, Hopkinton, MA, 01748, USA

    Amanda Ellen Young

Authors
  1. Mette Jensen Stochkendahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Corrie Myburgh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amanda Ellen Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan Hartvigsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mette Jensen Stochkendahl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stochkendahl, M.J., Myburgh, C., Young, A.E. et al. Manager Experiences with the Return to Work Process in a Large, Publically Funded, Hospital Setting: Walking a Fine Line. J Occup Rehabil 25, 752–762 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-015-9583-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-015-9583-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation