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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)64-71
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Occupational Rehabilitation
Volume29
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Mar 2019

Keywords

  • General practice
  • Return to work
  • Workers’ compensation

Cite this

@article{fbc613cd617c4701b02af6b0b183fefc,
title = "Do Health Service Use and Return-to-Work Outcomes Differ with GPs’ Injured-Worker Caseload?",
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",
author = "Danielle Mazza and Bianca Brijnath and O’Hare, {Mary Alice} and Rasa Ruseckaite and Agnieszka Kosny and Alex Collie",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1007/s10926-018-9765-y",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "64--71",
journal = "Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation",
issn = "1053-0487",
publisher = "Springer-Verlag London Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

Do Health Service Use and Return-to-Work Outcomes Differ with GPs’ Injured-Worker Caseload? / Mazza, Danielle; Brijnath, Bianca; O’Hare, Mary Alice; Ruseckaite, Rasa; Kosny, Agnieszka; Collie, Alex.

In: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, Vol. 29, No. 1, 15.03.2019, p. 64-71.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do Health Service Use and Return-to-Work Outcomes Differ with GPs’ Injured-Worker Caseload?

AU - Mazza, Danielle

AU - Brijnath, Bianca

AU - O’Hare, Mary Alice

AU - Ruseckaite, Rasa

AU - Kosny, Agnieszka

AU - Collie, Alex

PY - 2019/3/15

Y1 - 2019/3/15

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - General practice

KW - Return to work

KW - Workers’ compensation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062585937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10926-018-9765-y

DO - 10.1007/s10926-018-9765-y

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 64

EP - 71

JO - Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

JF - Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

SN - 1053-0487

IS - 1

ER -