Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:09:24.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of the Rehabilitation Provider in Occupational Rehabilitation: Providing for Whom? Part 2: Perceptions of Key Stakeholders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2015

Dianna T. Kenny
Dianna T. Kenny*
Affiliation:
The University of Sydney, Australia
*
School of Behavioural and Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe NSW 2141, Australia.
Get access

Abstract

This paper is the second part of a two part series that examines the perceived roles and effectiveness of rehabilitation providers. The first paper examined the perceptions of rehabilitation providers regarding their roles in, and perceived barriers to, occupational rehabilitation. In this paper, key stakeholders' perceptions of the role of rehabilitation providers in the management of workplace injury were assessed via interviews and surveys. Forty-nine injured workers were interviewed and 407 returned a survey questionnaire. Two surveys of employers were conducted: one in the Newcastle/Hunter region of NSW, Australia (N = 93), the other a state-wide survey (N = 612) of a representative sample of employers in NSW. In addition, nine treating doctors and 14 insurers were interviewed. Results indicated that two thirds of workers were satisfied with the service they had received from the rehabilitation provider. The major concerns of injured workers were the rehabilitation providers' lack of knowledge of the demands of particular workplaces, the problems associated with particular injuries and the pressure on rehabilitation providers from employers and insurers to return the injured worker to work. Sixty percent of employers reported that rehabilitation providers were effective in restoring injured workers to work. Treating doctors were generally hostile to rehabilitation providers, claiming that they were unprofessional, inexpert and poorly trained. Finally, insurers complained of stereotypical case management plans, role confusion, and over-servicing.

Type
Articles
Information
The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , 1998 , pp. 111 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ehrmann-Feldman, D., Rossignol, M., Abenhaim, L., & Gobeille, D. (1996). Physician referral to physical therapy in a cohort of workers compensated for low back pain. Physical Therapy, 76 (2), 150–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, J. A. (1991). Early referral and other factors affecting vocational rehabilitation outcome for the workers' compensation client. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 34 (3), 197–209.Google Scholar
Kenny, D.T. (1994). Determinants of time lost from workplace injury: The impact of the injury, the injured, the industry, the intervention and the insurer. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 17 (4), 333–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenny, D.T. (1995a). Common themes, different perspectives: A systemic analysis of employer-employee experiences of occupational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 39 (1), 54–77.Google Scholar
Kenny, D.T. (1995b). Occupational rehabilitation in New South Wales. Work and Rehabilitation Research Unit. Sydney: The University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. T. (1996). The roles, functions and effectiveness of treating doctors in the management of occupational injury: Perceptions of key stakeholders. The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 2(2), 86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lechner, D. E. (1994). Work hardening and work conditioning interventions: Do they affect disability? Physical Therapy, 74 (5), 471–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lusted, M. (1993). Predicting return to work after rehabilitation for low back injury. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 39 (3), 203–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Ryan, W. E., Krishna, M. K., & Swanson, C. E. (1995). A prospective study evaluating early rehabilitation in preventing back pain chronicity in mine workers. Spine, 20 (4), 489–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed