Every conference needs a voice of authority. The WorkCoverSA Conference for 2009 seemed to have Dr William Shaw as this voice.

Dr William Shaw, the Principal Research Scientist at Liberty Mutual Research Institute in the United States, outlined recent research about the workplace factors that are influencing return to work processes and the length of time taken to recuperate.

Long-time  RTWMatters subscribers would remember William Shaw from an interview with Anna Kelsey-Sugg from earlier in the year.

Ostensibly Shaw displayed the evidence that backs up much of the points made in the interview; however he reiterated the seven RTW Principles:

1. Demonstrated commitment to health and safety.
2. Routine offer of modified work/job accommodation.
3. RTW without disadvantaging co-workers.
4. Supervisors trained and included in RTW planning.
5. Early and considerate contact with injured worker.
6. Designated person to coordinate RTW.
7. Communicate with providers (with worker consent).

WorkcoverSA took some pride in having introduced RTW Coordinators and the conference itself was testament to several of the other principles. Shaw reassured the rehabilitation regulator in this case.

Shaw was particularly praising of New Zealand’s Acute Back Pain Guide and supported the use of different coloured flags for planning the control of back pain. Shaw illustrated how two similar workers, performing similar tasks generating similar injuries can have substantially different rehabilitation periods if psychosocial issues are not considered.

Shaw’s very recent research suggests there are distinct advantages in developing a worker profile for those susceptible to psychosocial factors, although he acknowledged that there are privacy and management issues that need to be carefully considered. The advantages of early psychosocial risk identification are:

• Reduced disability cost
• Provision of organisational feedback
• Potentially increased responsiveness to employee needs

The most significant information came from how the supervisor perceptions differed from worker perceptions. In the RTW Process, supervisors saw their roles as:

• Completing injury report (90%)
• Assessing validity of claim (65%)
• Protecting company (53%)
• Communicating with worker (41%)
• Including worker in process (30%)

Worker perceptions were much more focused on the individual, understandably.

This perception went some way to contextualising how supervisors often miscommunicate with workers generating unnecessary tension in the relationship or a feeling of being unwanted or undervalued in the employee.

Significantly Shaw and his colleagues have undertaken research into the role of RTW Coordinators, although the American slant in the studies indicated the importance of local research in this area.

He concluded his presentation with this summary:

• There is growing research evidence to support workplace interventions to prevent disability.
• Current trends in research and practice:
  • Worker-centred/workplace-focused
  • Early identification of high-risk cases
  • Involving supervisors and co-workers
  • Use of RTW coordinators
• More research is needed to guide employer decision-making about most cost-effective practices.
• Better understanding of organisational barriers from the employer perspective is needed.

In short, Shaw’s presence at the Conference was important as a voice of authority and his research was not that far from practical application. He balanced innovation with reassurance.