Articles

RTW Trends in Victoria 2005-06 to 2011-12

RTWMatters team

Return to work trends, influences on return to work, insurer customer service and demographic trends.

(Please click image above for results)

The overall return to work rate has not materially changed in Victoria over the last 12 months.  84% of employees have return to work at some point between lodging their claim and the time they are interviewed for the Monitor at around eight months post injury (86% in 2010-11). The durable return to work rate, a measure of sustained return to work, remains the same as last year at 76%.

There has been no significant change in the time it takes an individual to return to work, as measured by worker reports of when they went back to work and the number of days of compensation paid.

Over the last two years there has been an increase in the percentage of employees saying they felt ready to return to work when they returned. 

There has been a steady decline in the percentage of employees advising pain and injury was the main reason they didn’t feel ready to return to work.

The Return to Work Monitor’s measure of ‘return to work’ is being back at any work, whether it is the person’s normal duties or a modification of their usual job or a different job.

The percentage of Victorian employees advising they initially returned to work on “suitable duties” has not materially changed over the last six years. However, the percentage of employees back at their normal hours and normal duties at the time of the Monitor interview has declined steadily over the last seven years from 77% to 72%.

This means that, when compared to 2005-06, there is a slight reduction in return to work rates, and a greater drop in the percentage of people who have returned to their normal job.

Over the last two years there has been a significant drop in the percentage of Victorian employees advising a return to work plan had been developed as part of the return to work program. Of those who have a return to work plan, just under 75% say the plan has been helpful. Just over 60% say they were given assistance to follow the return to work plan.

In terms of who helped and who made return to work harder, just over 50% of injured Victorian employees said their main supervisor and employer helped, in 2011-12. Doctors and rehabilitation providers were seen as helpful by 80%. Insurers, or WorkCover Agents as they are known in Victoria, rated lowest on helpfulness. Approximately 40% of employees say the WorkCover Agent helped return to work.  This has remained constantly below the national average for the seven years of the Monitor reviewed.

There has been an inverse correlation between return to work and employees identifying someone who made their return to work harder. 18% of Victorian employees say their employer made return to work harder. A similar percentage said their main supervisor made return to work harder. In Victoria, 13% of employees said the WorkCover Agent made their return to work harder.

Over the last seven years there has been a significant drop in the percentage of injured employees identifying ‘injury-related’ reasons as the main reason they were not working. This has dropped from 94% in 2005-06 to 74% in 2011-12.

Over this time there has been an increase in the percentage of employees saying that have been retrenched or had left their employment. The sum of ‘being retrenched ‘ and ‘left employment ‘ increased from 23% to 37% over the same period of time.  The percentage of employees being retrenched has increased from 6% in 2005-06 to 15% in 2011-12.

There has been a general drop in employee assessment of workplace culture, such as whether their employer is prepared to spend money and time on safety, employer policies regarding return to work, and whether management is willing to provide support regarding return to work.

WorkCover Agent customer service ratings on advice about claim and rights have improved slightly. Other measures of customer service, such as communication, helpfulness and attitudes have declined, and continue to rate below the national average