Job retention and return to work of ill and injured workers

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to put forward a conceptual framework which details the policies and practices that can potentially contribute to the effective management of long-term absences, and hence the return to work and retention of ill and injured workers, and considers how far UK employers currently do have in place management arrangements which accord with those detailed in this framework. Design/methodology/approach -The conceptual framework detailed was developed by reference to secondary literature and the outcomes of a conference of relevant stakeholders. Available research evidence was then utilised to test the validity of this framework and to assess how far employers make use of the types of policies and practices identified in it. Findings -The research evidence reviewed lent a good deal of support to the propositions put forward in the conceptual framework as to the processes and practices that are central to the development of effective workplace rehabilitation programmes, as well as the internal and external factors that potentially influence the adoption and operation of them. It also indicated that there is a good deal of scope for employers to do far more to support the continued employment of ill, injured and disabled workers, particularly in smaller organisations. Practical implications -More needs to be done to encourage employers to adopt the types of policies and practices detailed in the conceptual framework and careful thought needs to be given to whether this encouragement is best provided by legislative or non-legal means. Originality/value -The central issue addressed, namely the management of long-term absence, is one that has been little explored in the existing human resource literature.

Facilitating job retention for chronically ill employees: perspectives of line managers and human resource managers

“…Most studies in this area have focussed on the perspectives and practices of LMs and HRM in disease absence or return-to-work management (secondary work disability prevention) [27,33,35,48,49]. James et al [50] proposed an evidence-based conceptual framework for organizational dynamics that may enhance the return-to-work and job retention of ill workers. Several of the concepts that are included in this framework were also identified by our study participants (e.g., the establishment and implementation of a policy framework, the provision of rehabilitative support and coordination of the rehabilitative process).…”

Traumatic stress sufferers: work as therapy or trigger?

“…Not working creates economic hardship and is associated with depressive symptoms (McKee-Ryan et al , 2005; Mucci et al , 2016; O’Hara et al , 2020). A return to work following personal misfortune is often viewed as a milestone in a recovery process (Blonk et al , 2006; Choi et al , 2020; James et al , 2002; James et al , 2006; O’Hara et al , 2020). Working in organizations can contribute to a mental health recovery process by allowing individuals to satisfy psychosocial needs to feel industrious and a sense of making a contribution to society (Konrad et al , 2013; Vogel-Scibilia et al , 2009).…”

Do return to work interventions for workers with disabilities and health conditions achieve employment outcomes and are they cost effective? A systematic narrative review

“…Return to work strategies may include a number of features, including: identifying workers who may be at risk of sickness absence; enabling access to medical treatment and support such as retraining and adjustments; communication and coordination between the stakeholders potentially involved in the return to work process including those who have been off sick, line managers, occupational health, HR managers and trade unions; access to worker representation; policy frameworks including naming those accountable for actions; ensuring that appropriate actions are undertaken; and evaluation of the effectiveness of strategies, with identification and addressing of weaknesses (Cunningham et al , 2004; James et al , 2006). In terms of specific interventions, there have been recommendations for multi-domain interventions including health care provision, coordination of services and workplace accommodations to reduce time away from work (Cullen et al , 2017).…”

“…Some relate to organisational policy, and whether disability is included in diversity initiatives (Erickson et al , 2013). Others relate to the type of job and work tasks and processes in place (James et al , 2006; Joosen et al , 2017): since people with disabilities are more likely to be in contingent work, they may find that employers are less likely to make adjustments to suit their specific needs (Schur, 2003), and return to work for someone with a mental illness might be challenging if their work is emotionally demanding, while someone with a musculoskeletal disorder might struggle in a physically demanding environment (Wiemer et al , 2017). Other factors relate to organisational dynamics.…”

“…There has also been an intensification of the struggle over another front: illness, sick leave, disability and the relative capability to perform specific types of work (see, e.g., Taylor et al , 2010). Return to work accommodations following sick leave require active engagement from a range of actors within the workplace and the allocation of appropriate resources (James et al , 2006). The resources put into return to work interventions may be diverted from other well-being initiatives, and therefore justification of their costs is important.…”