Worker satisfaction with a workplace injury prevention and
return-to-work program in a large Canadian hospital: The importance of an
integrated approach
Affiliations: Institute of Health Promotion Research, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada | Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada | Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare
(OHSAH), Vancouver, BC, Canada
Note: [] Address for correspondence: Dr. Annalee Yassi, Executive
Director, Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare, 301-1195 West
Broadway, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6H 3X5. Tel.: +1 778 328 8000; Fax: +1 778 328
8002; E-mail: annaleey@aol.com
Abstract: Background: Workplace injuries cause considerable morbidity,
requiring intervention programs with strong stakeholder support and effective
interdisciplinary practitioner involvement. Such a program, called Prevention
and Early Active Return-to-Work Safely (PEARS), decreased time loss and costs
in a large Canadian hospital. However, it only attracted 39% of workers who
reported injuries. This triggered a study of utilization and satisfaction with
PEARS to determine areas to further enhance the program. Methods: The hospital's occupational health department records
identified 758 workers who reported a musculoskeletal injury (MSI) during the
first year of PEARS, along with demographic and injury details. All were
telephoned regardless of participation in the PEARS program. Results: Of the 335 survey respondents, 136 had used PEARS. The most
common reason justifying non-participation was perception of the injury as
minor (45%). PEARS participants accessed significantly more resources than
non-participants – including accessing physiotherapy (82.8% of
participants versus 33.3% of non-participants) and physicians (74.8% versus
64.3%), and workplace assessments (37.9% versus 11.4%). Workplace assessment
was the only component of the program that was perceived to be significantly
more successful by PEARS participants (64.9%) versus non-participants (35.3%)
(p=0.002). Conclusion: The fact that the only significant difference in
satisfaction of services between those who accessed PEARS versus those who did
not related to the workplace assessments underscores the value of proving
workplace assessments in the context of an integrated approach to primary and
secondary prevention, in which there is a direct link to knowledgeable medical
and rehabilitation professionals who provide clinical advice that dovetails
with the reality of the workplace setting. A program that emphasizes workplace
assessment as an important complement to medical advice and physiotherapy is,
therefore, advisable to decrease work disability.
