Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and Pilot Assessment of the PACE Tool: Helping Case Managers Identify and Respond to Risk Factors in Workers’ Compensation Case Management

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

Abstract

Purpose The aim was to develop a tool to be applied by workers’ compensation case managers to guide intervention and avoid delayed return to work. Methods The Plan of Action for a CasE (PACE) tool was developed based on a review of existing literature, focus groups with case managers and analysis of existing claims data. Combined with analysis of existing case manager practice, these sources were used to determine key constructs for inclusion in the tool to be aligned with the demands of case manager workload. Mapping of existing interventions was used to match risk identified by the tool with appropriate intervention. Results The final PACE tool consisted of 41 questions divided into Ready (worker), Set (employer) and Go (treating practitioner) categories. Questions in the tool were linked to appropriate case manager actions. Data collection was completed by case managers for 524 claims within the first 2 weeks of the claim being accepted. The most commonly identified risks for delayed RTW included both worker and employer expectations of RTW, as well as certification of capacity. Factor analysis identified two factors operating across the tool categories. Case managers reported benefits in using the tool, but reported it also increased their workload. Conclusions The PACE tool is a unique example of the implementation of risk identification in case management practice. It demonstrates that case managers are ideally placed to collect information to identify risk of delayed RTW. Future work will establish the impact of case-manager led intervention based on identified risks on outcomes for injured workers.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Takala J, Hamalainen P, Saarela KL, Yun LY, Manickam K, Jin TW, et al. Global estimates of the burden of injury and illness at work in 2012. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;11(5):326–337.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Liberty Mutual Insurance. Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index. 2018. https://business.libertymutualgroup.com/business-insurance/Documents/Services/Workplace%20Safety%20Index.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

  3. SafeWork Australia. The cost of work-related injury and illness for Australian employers, workers and the community: 2012–13. Canberra: SafeWork Australia; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Collie A, Di Donato M, Iles R. Work Disability in Australia: An Overview of Prevalence, Expenditure, Support Systems and Services. J Occup Rehabil. 2019;29(3):526–539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sheehan LR, Gray SE, Lane TJ, Beck D, Collie A. Long-Term Workers’ Compensation Claims in Australia. 2018.

  6. Schultz IZ, Chlebak CM, Law AK. Bridging the gap: evidence-informed early intervention practices for injured workers with nonvisible disabilities. In: Handbook of return to work: from research to practice [Internet]. New York: Springer; 2016. p. 222–253.

  7. Gross DP, Bostick GP, Carroll LJ. Risk identification and prediction of return to work in musculoskeletal disorders. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Handbook of return to work: from research to practice. New York: Springer; 2016. p. 207–220.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. 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):543–556.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hingorani AD, Windt DA, Riley RD, Abrams K, Moons KG, Steyerberg EW, et al. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 4: stratified medicine research. BMJ. 2013;346:e5793.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, van der Windt DA, Hayden JA, Perel P, Schroter S, et al. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001381.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Knauf MT, Schultz IZ. Current conceptual models of return to work. In: Handbook of return to work: from research to practice [Internet]. New York: Springer; 2016. p. 27–52.

  12. Schultz IZ, Chlebak CM, Stewart AM. Impairment, disability, and return to work. In: Handbook of return to work: from research to practice [Internet]. New York: Springer; 2016. p. 3–23.

  13. Gardner BT, Pransky G, Shaw WS, Hong QN, Loisel P. Researcher perspectives on competencies of return-to-work coordinators. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(1):72–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shaw W, Hong QN, Pransky G, Loisel P. A literature review describing the role of return-to-work coordinators in trial programs and interventions designed to prevent workplace disability. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(1):2–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Newnam S, Petersen A, Keleher H, Collie A, Vogel A, McClure R. Stuck in the middle: the emotional labours of case managers in the personal injury compensation system. Work. 2016;55(2):347–357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lu XW, Xu YW. Effectiveness of problem solving skills in case management on return to work for workers with injuries. Work. 2008;30(1):47–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kilgour E, Kosny A, McKenzie D, Collie A. Healing or harming? Healthcare provider interactions with injured workers and insurers in workers’ compensation systems. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(1):220–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pergola T, Salazar MK, Graham KY, Brines J. Case management services for injured workers. Providers’ perspectives. AAOHN J. 1999;47(9):397–404.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gross DP, Armijo-Olivo S, Shaw WS, Williams-Whitt K, Shaw NT, Hartvigsen J, et al. Clinical decision support tools for selecting interventions for patients with disabling musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(3):286–318.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pransky G, Shaw WS, Loisel P, Hong Q, Désorcy B. Development and validation of competencies for return to work coordinators. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(1):41–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Iles R, Long D, Ellis N, Collie A. Risk factor identification for delayed return to work: best practice statement. Monash University, Insurance Work and Health Group FoMNaHS. 2018.

  22. MacEachen E, Chambers L, Kosny A, Keown K. Red flags green lights: a guide to identifying and solving return-to-work problems. Toronto: Institue for Work and Health; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Loisel P, Buchbinder R, Hazard R, Keller R, Scheel I, van Tulder M, et al. Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):507–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Iles RA, Wyatt M, Pransky G. Multi-faceted case management: reducing compensation costs of musculoskeletal work injuries in Australia. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(4):478–488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320(7226):50–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative research in health care. 3rd ed. Massachusetts: Blackwell publishing; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Linton SJ, Boersma K, Traczyk M, Shaw W, Nicholas M. Early workplace communication and problem solving to prevent back disability: results of a randomized controlled trial among high-risk workers and their supervisors. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(2):150–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Linton SJ, Nicholas M, MacDonald S. Development of a short form of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(22):1891–1895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Warr P, Cook J, Wall T. Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. J Occup Psychol. 1979;52(2):129–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Iles RA, Taylor NF, Davidson M, O’Halloran P. Telephone coaching can increase activity levels for people with non-chronic low back pain: a randomised trial. J Physiother. 2011;57(4):231–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. SafeWork Australia. National Return to Work Survey—2016. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1703/return-to-work-survey-2016-questionnaire_0.pdf.

  34. Street TD, Lacey SJ. A systematic review of studies identifying predictors of poor return to work outcomes following workplace injury. Work. 2015;51(2):373–381.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wallace E, Uijen MJ, Clyne B, Zarabzadeh A, Keogh C, Galvin R, et al. Impact analysis studies of clinical prediction rules relevant to primary care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(3):e009957.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Melloh M, Elfering A, Egli Presland C, Roeder C, Barz T, Rolli Salathe C, et al. Identification of prognostic factors for chronicity in patients with low back pain: a review of screening instruments. Int Orthop. 2009;33(2):301–313.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Lheureux A, Berquin A. Comparison between the STarT back screening tool and the orebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire: which tool for what purpose? A semi-systematic review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;62(3):178–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Karran EL, McAuley JH, Traeger AC, Hillier SL, Grabherr L, Russek LN, et al. Can screening instruments accurately determine poor outcome risk in adults with recent onset low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Opsommer E, Rivier G, Crombez G, Hilfiker R. The predictive value of subsets of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire for return to work in chronic low back pain. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017;53(3):359–365.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sattelmayer M, Lorenz T, Roder C, Hilfiker R. Predictive value of the acute low back pain screening questionnaire and the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire for persisting problems. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(Suppl 6):S773–S784.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tjulin A, MacEachen E. The importance of workplace social relations in the return to work process: a missing piece in the return to work puzzle? In: Handbook of return to work: from research to practice [Internet]. New York: Springer; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Collie A, Sheehan L, Lane TJ, Gray S, Grant G. Injured worker experiences of insurance claim processes and return to work: a national, cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):927.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. AFOEM. Consensus Statement on the Health Benefits of Good Work. 2017. https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/afoem-realising-the-health-benefits-of-work-consensus-statement.pdf?sfvrsn=baab321a_14. Accessed 7 Apr 2019.

  44. Hussey L, Money A, Gittins M, Agius R. Has the fit note reduced general practice sickness certification rates? Occup Med (Lond). 2015;65(3):182–189.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Iles RA, Davidson M, Taylor NF, O’Halloran P. Systematic review of the ability of recovery expectations to predict outcomes in non-chronic non-specific low back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(1):25–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Costa-Black KM, Loisel P, Anema JR, Pransky G. Back pain and work. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):227–240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Shaw WS, van der Windt DA, Main CJ, Loisel P, Linton SJ. Decade of the Flags Working G Early patient screening and intervention to address individual-level occupational factors (“blue flags”) in back disability. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(1):64–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Peters DH, Adam T, Alonge O, Agyepong IA, Tran N. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. BMJ. 2013;347:f6753.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Employers Mutual Limited Member Benefits fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Insurance Work and Health Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, 3004, Australia

    Ross Iles & Luke Sheehan

  2. Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Frankston, Australia

    Ross Iles

  3. Employers Mutual Limited (EML), Sydney, Australia

    Karen Munk

  4. Department of Community Emergency Health and Paramedic Practice, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Frankston, Australia

    Cameron Gosling

Authors
  1. Ross Iles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luke Sheehan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen Munk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cameron Gosling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ross Iles.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author Iles received salary support under the grant from the Employers Mutual Limited Member Benefits fund. Author Sheehan declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Munk is an employee of Employers Mutual Limited. Author Gosling received salary support under the grant from the Employers Mutual Limited Member Benefits fund. Author Gosling received financial support from Employers Mutual Limited to present aspects of the project at an international conference.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All components of the research, including obtaining informed consent, were approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Application Numbers 6994, 6995 and 7695).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Major themes derived from focus groups
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iles, R., Sheehan, L., Munk, K. et al. Development and Pilot Assessment of the PACE Tool: Helping Case Managers Identify and Respond to Risk Factors in Workers’ Compensation Case Management. J Occup Rehabil 30, 167–182 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09858-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09858-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation