The evidence base for WHS priority setting in a changing work landscape: an appraisal of sources and opportunities for enhancement

Bluff, Elizabeth; O’Keeffe, Valerie

doi:10.1080/10301763.2020.1769898

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over time, the NDIS Commission's guidance should seek to refine the information and specificity of what is expected to achieve compliance standards and drive continuous improvement. Compliance and enforcement action must be undertaken strategically and be based on the data and information the Commission gathers as it matures (Bluff & O'Keeffe, 2020). At the same time, the NDIS Commission must also note a tendency for "regulatory creep" to arise through a guidance-led approach (Hampton, 2005), and growth of so-called "regulatory dark matter" in the form of "unaccountable" regulatory guidance, which can drive unrealistic and costly expectations (Wallace, 2019).…”

Section: Principle-based Regulation and The Role Of The Regulatormentioning

confidence: 99%

Disability versus work health and safety: a safe workplace and the right to an “ordinary life”: commentary on “Regulating disability services: the case of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme quality and safeguarding system” (Hough, 2021)

Marsh

2021

Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regulating human behaviour through legislation is challenging at the best of times. The complex and, at times, competing web of objectives and values of individuals and the community as a whole can be difficult to articulate, let alone regulate. The challenges in getting the regulatory mix right in disability support services have been usefully illustrated by Hough (2021) in his examination of the design choices underpinning Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The article provides particularly useful observations linking the component parts of the NDIS design to the broader literature on regulation, particularly leading thinkers on regulation such as Ayres and Braithwaite (1992), Baldwin et al. (2012), Black (2002, 2011 and Sparrow (2020).In his concluding remarks, Hough (2021) has invited further exploration of the interaction between the NDIS and other regulatory systems, notably Work Health and Safety schemes. Doing so may help to assess an observation made recently at the Royal Commission (19 December 2019) that worker safety may be prioritised over the quality of life of people with challenging behaviours by using restrictive practices as a form of Work Health and Safety risk control (National Disability Services, 2019). This commentary responds to Hough's invitation and compares the design and implementation of the NDIS and Work Health and Safety laws. It highlights a putative tension between accommodating both worker rights and the rights of people with a disability to live an "ordinary life" under the separate regulatory schemes. The commentary concludes by identifying directions that may help reconcile that apparent tension to recognise human rights for all. Shared featuresMany factors identified by Hough (2021) on the development of the NDIS are reminiscent of those that led to change in Work Health and Safety law. Two factors in particular account for much of the change to Work Health and Safety in the past 50 years.

show abstract

Section: Principle-based Regulation and The Role Of The Regulatormentioning

confidence: 99%

Disability versus work health and safety: a safe workplace and the right to an “ordinary life”: commentary on “Regulating disability services: the case of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme quality and safeguarding system” (Hough, 2021)

Marsh

2021

Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies examining the relationship between occupations, industries and psychological distress have shown mixed results. Policymakers typically rely on evidence from compensation claims data to identify high‐risk workforces, 3 but barriers to claim acceptance 4 and lack of eligibility in some industries means workers' compensation data is unlikely to provide a true indication of rates of psychological distress across industry workforces. Population‐based survey data can provide a more comprehensive perspective when comparing prevalence of distress across occupational groups; however, the limited Australian research undertaken of this kind has found no evidence of an association between specific occupations (i.e., teachers, nurses) and either mental disorders 5 or psychological distress 6 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Industry differences in psychological distress and distress-related productivity loss: A cross-sectional study of Australian workers

Burns,

Schroeder,

Fung

et al. 2023

Journal of Occupational Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis research uses Australian survey data to identify industries with high rates of psychological distress, and to estimate productivity impacts in the form of work loss and cutback days.MethodsAnalyzing cross‐sectional data from the 2017/2018 National Health Survey, industry prevalence of psychological distress (Kessler Screening Scale) was compared using ordered logistic regression. Productivity outcomes were distress‐related work loss days and work cutback days in the previous 4 weeks. Losses were analyzed using zero‐inflated negative binomial regression.ResultsThe sample consisted of 9073 employed workers [4497 males (49.6%), 4576 females (50.4%)]. Compared to the reference industry, Health, the odds of very high distress for males were highest in Information media and telecommunications (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.2–4.6) and Administrative and support services (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.2–5.0), while for females the odds were highest in Accommodation and food services (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.5–2.8) followed by Retail (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2–2.0). Very high distress was associated excess productivity losses. Industry of occupation did not impact on productivity loss over and above distress.ConclusionsSubstantial psychological distress was reported which impacted on productivity. High‐risk industries included Information media and telecommunications, Accommodation and food services, and Retail.

show abstract

Workplace safety and future and emerging ways of work: A systematic literature review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evidence base for WHS priority setting in a changing work landscape: an appraisal of sources and opportunities for enhancement

Cited by 4 publications

References 41 publications

Disability versus work health and safety: a safe workplace and the right to an “ordinary life”: commentary on “Regulating disability services: the case of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme quality and safeguarding system” (Hough, 2021)

Disability versus work health and safety: a safe workplace and the right to an “ordinary life”: commentary on “Regulating disability services: the case of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme quality and safeguarding system” (Hough, 2021)

Industry differences in psychological distress and distress-related productivity loss: A cross-sectional study of Australian workers

Workplace safety and future and emerging ways of work: A systematic literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About