Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:11:00.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of the Rehabilitation Provider in Occupational Rehabilitation: Providing for Whom? Part 1: Self-perceptions

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

Rehabilitation providers were the product of the 1987 Workers' Compensation Act in NSW, Australia. They operate in a complex environment and serve many masters. This paper assesses how rehabilitation providers are faring in the management of workplace injury. Using in depth semi-structured interviews, the self-perceptions of rehabilitation providers are presented. Results indicate that the current practice of rehabilitation providers labours under a heavy load of competing responsibilities, difficult clientele, adversarial stakeholders, economic restraints, and an unwieldy and clumsy workers' compensation system. Specific problems highlighted by rehabilitation providers included the identification of their core business and client group; misconceptions, lack of information and failure of communication among stakeholders; and lack of co-operation and overt and covert obstruction to the rehabilitation process. Rehabilitation providers perceived that they could function most effectively if they developed a genuine, trusting relationship with the injured worker, and educated and supported the treating doctor and employer in the rehabilitation and return to work process. Rehabilitation providers linked employer support of the injured worker to their willingness to provide suitable duties. Early referral was also considered an essential element in successful return to work. It was argued that rehabilitation providers should conceptualise themselves as advocates for the rehabilitation process rather than for any stakeholder group. This conceptualisation allows the provider to move comfortably between groups of stakeholders, addressing their diverse needs while maintaining their focus on their core business.

Type
Articles
Information
The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , 1998 , pp. 97 - 110
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

Andrews, (1994). The Tolkein Report 11: A model for matching the available workforce to the demand for services. Sydney: University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Cotton, P. (1995). A study of the characteristics of stress-related compensation claimants. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Cotton, P. (1996). The prevention and management of psychological dysfunction in occupational settings. In Cotton, P. and Jackson, H. (Eds). Early intervention and prevention in mental health. Melbourne: Australian Psychological Society.Google Scholar
Crisson, J. E., & Kneefe, F. J. (1988). The relationship of locus of control to pain coping strategies and psychological distress in chronic pain patients. Pain, 35, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, G. (1996). Is compensation bad for your back? The Australian journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 2 (2). 128–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. R. (1988). The determinants and consequences of coping with stress. In Cooper, G. L. & Payne, R. (Eds). Causes, copingand consequences of stress at work. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Grellman, R. J. (1997). Inquiry into workers' compensation system in NSW: Final Report. Sydney: KPMG.Google Scholar
Hart, P. M., Wearing, A. J., & Headey, B. (1993). Assessing police work experiences: Development of the Police Daily Hassles and Uplifts Scales. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 553–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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). Failures in occupational rehabilitation: A case study analysis. Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 1 (1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D.T. (1995c). Case management in occupational rehabilitation: Would the real case manager please stand up? Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 1 (2), 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. T. (1995d). Patterns of referral to accredited rehabilitation providers and outcomes of service. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counselling, 26 (4), 46–52.CrossRefGoogle 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
Kenny, D. T. (1998). Returning to work following workplace injury: Impact of worker and work-place factors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 29, 1, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D.T. (1999). Occupational stress: Reflections on theory and practice. In Kenny, D. T., Carlson, J. G., McGuigan, F. J., and Sheppard, J. L., (Eds.) (1999). Stress and health: Research and clinical applications. Ryde, NSW: Gordon Breach Science/Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. T., Kable, S., Kroon, M., Quinn, S., & Edwards, S. (1999, in press). Employer compliance with rehabilitation. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety — Australia and New Zealand, 15, 3.Google Scholar
Mehler, P. J., & Wodtke, K. H. (1990). A survey of unethical practices in rehabilitation counseling using the randomized response method. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Millon, T. (1990). Towards a new personohgy: An evolutionary model. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. C, Young, A. E., & Vo, K. (1995). Using locus of control to predict the return-to-work achievements of back-injured occupational rehabilitation clients. The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 1 (2), 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, M. (1995). Non-physical factors that affect work hardening success; A retrospective study. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 22 (6), 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quebec Taskforce on Spinal Disorders (1987). Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders: A monograph for clinicians. Spine, 12 (Supplement).Google Scholar
Quinlan, M. (1988). Psychological and sociological approaches to the study of occupational illness: A critical review. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 24 (2), 189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrey, D. (1993). Workplace-based disability management: Challenges and opportunities for joint employer rehabilitation professional initiatives. Proceedings of the Second National Rehabilitation Conference (pp. 27-36). Sydney, Australia: Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service.Google Scholar
Tarvydas, V. M., & Cottone, R. R. (1991). Ethical responses to legislative, organizational, and economic dynamics: A four level model of ethical practice. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counselling, 22 (4), 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turk, D., & Rudy, T. (1991). Persistent pain and the injured worker: Integrating biomedical, psychosocial and behavioural factors in assessment. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 1, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (1994). Workers' Compensation Statistics. Sydney, NSW: Author.Google Scholar