Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-xxrs7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T21:47:41.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Beyond Blame: An Exposition of Systemic Barriers in the Return-to-Work Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Patricia Murphy*
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Australia
Veronica O'Neill
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Australia
Elizabeth Kendall
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Australia
*
Ms Patricia Murphy, Centre for Human Services, Disability and Rehabilitation Research Unit, Griffith University Logan Campus, Meadowbrook, Queensland 4131, Australia
Get access

Abstract

The Compulsory Third Party (CTP) system in Queensland is in need of modification to ensure efficacious rehabilitation outcomes for individuals injured in motor vehicle accidents (MVAs). In an attempt to address this concern, a study was conducted to examine the perceptions of three major stakeholders in this CTP process, namely, insurers, rehabilitation providers and solicitors. Further, the systemic chemistry inherent to the system was explored. Pervasive within this study was the notion that a culture of blame resulted from competing stakeholder agendas, the nature of the partnerships established between these stakeholders, and the widespread confusion resulting from the interplay of complex systemic factors. These systemic factors contributed significantly to ineffective rehabilitation and return to work for persons injured in MVAs. This paper is the first in a series about these concerns.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Foster, M., & Kendall, E. (1997). An evaluation of a community access and rehabilitation program. Brisbane, Australia: Department of Health and Family Services.Google Scholar
Hall, K.M., & Cope, D.N. (1995). The benefit of rehabilitation in traumatic brain injury: A literature review, Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 10(1), 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, E., & Buys, N. (1999). The psychosocial consequences of motor vehicle accidents. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 4, 4766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. (1995). Common themes, different perspectives: A systemic analysis of employer-employee experiences of occupational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 39, 5477.Google Scholar
King, N. (1994). The qualitative research interview. In Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organisational research: A practical guide (pp. 1436). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Krause, A., Frank, J.W., Dasinger, L.K., Sullivan, T.J., & Sinclair, S.J. (2001). Determinants of duration of disability and return to work after work-related injury and illness: Challenges for future research. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 40, 464484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montuori, L.A. (2000). Organizational longevity: Integrating systems thinking, learning and conceptual complexity. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(1), 6173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, W.L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Norris, F.H. (1992). Epidemiology of trauma: Frequency and impact of different potentially traumatic events on different demographic groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 409418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Donnell, C. (2000). Motor accident and workers' compensation insurance design for high-quality health outcomes and cost containment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22, (1/2), 8896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, M.Q. (1991). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Queensland University of Technology. (1999). Rehabilitation in the Queensland third party scheme since 1994: Consultancy report. Brisbane, Australia: Author.Google Scholar
Stoecker, R. (1991). Evaluating and rethinking the case study. Sociological Review, 39(1), 88112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, D.G. (1992). Factors influencing injured employees return to work. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counselling, 23(2), 1720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar