KITIMAT DRAFT Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 6 Cooperative RTW Responsibility Attribute #4 - Key Research: The empowerment of important stakeholders in the workers’ insurance and compensation system and their inclusion in the planning of service delivery are crucial for developing a sustainable and effective system. (Tang et al- 2011) Work disability involves multiple factors and there are now a number of well-recognized disability prevention strategies offered as part of comprehensive, occupational rehabilitation services that have been successfully piloted in different countries. These strategies mainly target specific biopsychosocial and environmental/workplace factors in an attempt to facilitate the RTW and SAW (healthy stay at work) processes. However, such models require a contextual adaptation in order to be successfully implemented in a given country. They also require joint agreements, good cooperation among stakeholders and a common understanding of the consequences of work disability. (Costa- Black, Chen, Li & Loisel – 2011) Most studies suggested optimal relationships among stakeholders were important for RTW Intervention. (Kong etal – 2012) Additionally, worker and management collaboration through JHSCs continue to play an important role in generating and maintaining safe and healthy workplaces. Internal responsibility for occupational health and safety comes not only from management but also from the interaction between management and labour, from mandated safety committees and from empowered workers. As expected, greater agency of the JHSC was related to lower injury rates. While nearly all JHSCs were responsible for conducting inspections and investigating serious accidents, JHSCs at firms with lower injury rates were more likely to have executive functions and to be responsible for the training of workers. They were also more likely to work in collaboration with management. (Geldart et al – 2010) Workers’ problems with extended claims were linked to RTW policies that did not easily accommodate conflict or power imbalances among RTW parties and by social relations and processes that impeded communication about RTW situations and problems. Avenues for intervention are located in a shift to a critical lens to RTW process that addresses differences of knowledge, resources and interests among different parties. (MacEachen et al – 2010) We recommend employing strategies to encourage a “shared understanding” of RTW – for example, processes that bring together workers, unions, employers, insurers and healthcare providers. (Workplace-based Return-to-Work Interventions: A Systematic Review of the Quantitative and Qualitative Literature – Institute for Work and Health - 2004) <strong>DRAFT</strong> A person’s chance of returning to the labour market is not solely determined by improvement in health but is also affected by individual factors (i.e. sociodemographic and psychological characteristics) and factors from the workplace, health and social insurance domains. Furthermore, the transition from long-term sickness absence from work is often a complex process involving various stakeholders (ie, the affected workers, employers, healthcare providers, and insurers), who may have different perspectives on how to achieve a successful RTW. (Helverskov et al – 2012) 24 Situational Assessment District of Kitimat
4. Cooperative RTW Responsibility A successful RTW program starts with the participation of both management and labour in the development and operation of the program. When the union is an equal partner in the development and management of the process they, by default, take responsibility to find equitable solutions. A cooperative approach fosters problem-solving practices and reduces adversarial tactics and negative attitudes. District of Kitimat Situational Assessment Findings: Optimal Score: 2184 District of Kitimat Score: 236 11% of Optimal Score Achieved Chart 17 <strong>DRAFT</strong> Situational assessment District of Kitimat 25
Page 1: DISTRICT OF KITIMAT SITUATIONAL ASS
Page 4 and 5: This program is a non profit initia
Page 6 and 7: More and more employers were being
Page 8 and 9: Figure 1 Key Research: The Situatio
Page 10 and 11: Figure 2 Strong Commitment/RTW Poli
Page 12 and 13: Figure 3 RTW/AccommodATion Policy (
Page 14 and 15: 3) An overwhelming majority of resp
Page 16 and 17: Summary: In keeping with the leadin
Page 18 and 19: Figure 4 Injury Reporting Procedure
Page 20 and 21: Observations: 1) 96% of respondents
Page 22 and 23: Summary: The responses indicate tha
Page 24 and 25: 3. Early Contact / Intervention An
Page 26 and 27: 3) Over 50% of the respondents did
Page 30 and 31: 1) Almost 50% of the respondents ar
Page 32 and 33: Summary: In this attribute, the unk
Page 34 and 35: 5. Attitudinal Barriers The negativ
Page 36 and 37: 3) 73% of respondents believe that
Page 38 and 39: Summary: It appears that many of th
Page 40 and 41: O 1 2 C 6. Transfer of Medical Info
Page 42 and 43: Summary: There is a good understand
Page 44 and 45: 7. Linking Primary and Secondary Pr
Page 46 and 47: 3) 75% of respondents do not know w
Page 48 and 49: 8. Utilization of Disability Preven
Page 50 and 51: 3) This may be a perception that ca
Page 52 and 53: 7) Although 67% (chart 42) agreed t
Page 54 and 55: Figure 11 Compliance with Human Rig
Page 56 and 57: 1) Almost three quarters of the res
Page 58 and 59: Figure 12 Mobilization of RTW Leade
Page 60 and 61: 1) It would be expected that the em
Page 62 and 63: Figure 13 Internal Dispute Resoluti
Page 64 and 65: Figure 14 RTW Evaluation Attribute
Page 66 and 67: 1) The majority of respondents did
Page 68 and 69: OVERALL SUMMARY The situational ass
Page 70 and 71: OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Educate

KITIMAT DRAFT Report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?