PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Ev Innes

Publications and source records attributed to Ev Innes.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Attributes of excellence in work-related assessments.

UNLABELLED: In order for clinicians to select and conduct work-related assessments that demonstrate 'best practice', it is necessary to identify assessments that are considered 'excellent'. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine (1) the attributes associated with excellence for each of 3 types of work-related assessment (WPAs, FCEJs & FCENJs), and (2) the differences between the attributes associated with each type of work-related assessment. STUDY DESIGN: A questionnaire was sent to all accredited occupational or vocational rehabilitation providers in Australia, targeting occupational therapists and physiotherapists who conducted work-related assessments. The response rate was 25.3%, and 132 questionnaires were analysed. RESULTS: A MANOVA revealed that the perceived importance of 18 attributes was different between the 3 forms of work-related assessment F36, 364=6.54; p<0.001). There was a core of 7 attributes that showed no difference between assessments (accurate, comprehensive, credible, flexible, practical, safe and useful). Two attributes (generalisable and specific) were different for all 3 forms of assessment. A large group of attributes (consistent, measurable, objective, reliable, reproducible, standardised, structured and valid) demonstrated significant differences between WPAs and both forms of FCE. Relevant demonstrated significant differences between FCENJs and both WPAs and FCEJs. Reliability analysis revealed 2 constructs (dependability and utility). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that there were significant differences between 3 forms of work-related assessments (WPAs, FCEJs & FCENJs) in terms of the attributes considered necessary for excellence for each form of assessment. The attributes were considered to relate to either qualitative or quantitative features of assessment. These features were reflected in the constructs utility, which was comprised of qualitative attributes and associated with broad concepts of validity, and dependability, which was comprised of quantitative attributes and reflected concepts of reliability. There appeared to be a continuum of work-related assessment that ranged from WPAs demonstrating the most qualitative attributes to FCENJs demonstrating the most quantitative features.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2003

Workplace assessments and functional capacity evaluations: current beliefs of therapists in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to understand the current beliefs of therapists in Australia, and the strategies they use to address the issues of credibility, reliability, consistency, trustworthiness, validity, generalisability and quality in conducting work-related assessments. STUDY DESIGN: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 occupational therapists and physiotherapists from around Australia. FINDINGS: Participants expressed the belief that the therapist was the assessment instrument and was central to the credibility of an assessment. Conflict was reported when participants modified standardised assessments in an attempt to focus on context relevant activities and tasks. Participants were aware of the issues of reliability and validity but believed it was not practical to establish these aspects formally in most work-related assessments. The strategies used to achieve credibility, reliability, consistency, trustworthiness, validity, generalisability and quality were similar to those recommended for use in qualitative research. CONCLUSIONS: The strategies identified in this study can provide the basis for therapists to examine how they conduct work-related assessments and consider whether they currently use these strategies or have the opportunity to implement others.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed2002

An organizational case study of the case manager's role in a client's return-to-work programme in Australia.

The purpose of this study was to examine the case manager's role in a return-to-work programme in Sydney, Australia. The investigators examined the case manager's role assumed by occupational therapists, physiotherapists, psychologists and rehabilitation counsellors when providing occupational rehabilitation services. Files of closed cases (n=172) were examined to investigate the relationship between the case manager's profession and return-to-work outcomes. It was found that the provider of occupational rehabilitation examined in this study achieved above-average return-to-work rates (83%), with no significant difference between case managers. There was, however, a significant relationship between the client's type of injury and the case manager (p<0.001), and case length was significantly different between case managers (p=0.004). The occupational therapist had the largest case management load (43%), followed by the rehabilitation counsellor (23%). There were trends (0.05<p<0.1) between the case manager's profession and return to the same employer, and return to pre-injury, modified or new duties. The provider allocated cases on the basis of professional expertise and skill, which proved to be successful. The provision of workplace-based occupational rehabilitation services combined with case management provides a comprehensive and attractive package to employers and other referrers. Further research is required to investigate factors associated with case management that improve return-to-work outcomes.

Australia↗
PubMed2002

Workplace assessments and functional capacity evaluations: current practices of therapists in Australia.

UNLABELLED: The literature has focused predominantly on functional capacity evaluations and related clinic-based assessments, however, there is little that examines workplace-based assessment approaches. In Australia, rehabilitation of injured workers occurs in the workplace wherever possible, and it is expected that workplace-based services will increase elsewhere in the future. There is a lack of knowledge, however, of therapists' current practices regarding workplace- and clinic-based work-related assessments. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to understand the current practice of therapists in Australia who are directly involved in conducting work-related assessments. STUDY DESIGN: A naturalistic inquiry approach was utilised for this study. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 occupational therapists and physiotherapists representing a spread of geographical locations, organisations, and experience. FINDINGS: Participants described three major types of work-related assessments - workplace assessments, functional capacity evaluations (job) and functional capacity evaluations (no job). The types, purposes, and characteristics of work-related assessments were described and influences and constraints identified. Participants described using processes, data sources, methods of data collection and analysis consistent with qualitative methods, although some quantitative methods were also employed. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the further a work-related assessment moves away from the actual work environment and requirements of a specific job, the greater its level of standardisation and generalisability. Conversely, when work-related assessments occur in the actual work environment, qualitative processes are used, and results are specific and non-generalisable.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed2002

Strategies used when conducting work-related assessments.

UNLABELLED: The attributes of work-related assessments have been found to differ between types of assessment. This suggests that there may also be strategies that are more appropriately used with some assessments than with others. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine: the reported frequency with which strategies were actually and ideally used when conducting each of three types of work-related assessment (workplace assessment (WPA); functional capacity evaluation (job) (FCEJ); functional capacity evaluation (no job) (FCENJ)); if there were differences between the strategies used with each type of work-related assessment; and the barriers, if any, that existed to achieving ideal practice when conducting work-related assessments. STUDY DESIGN: A questionnaire was sent to all accredited occupational or vocational rehabilitation providers in Australia, targeting occupational therapists and physiotherapists who conducted work-related assessments. The response rate was 25.3%, and 132 questionnaires were analysed. RESULTS: MANOVAs revealed there were significant differences between the 3 forms of work-related assessments for the strategies actually used F 78,40=3.47; p<0.001) and ideally used (F 78,24 =2.36; p=0.010). For both actually and ideally used strategies there was a core of strategies with no significant difference and shared by all forms of assessment. Several patterns of difference emerged. The largest group was where WPAs were different from both forms of FCE. A smaller group of strategies showed a difference between FCENJs and both WPAs and FCEJs. There were also some strategies that were different for all forms of assessment. Reliability analysis revealed 7 constructs which reflected the process of conducting work-related assessments. The major barrier to achieving ideal practice was time/cost. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that there were significant differences between 3 forms of work-related assessments (WPAs, FCEJs & FCENJs) for the reported actual and ideal use of strategies. These strategies were associated with more qualitative or quantitative forms of assessment. This appeared to represent a continuum of work-related assessments that ranged from WPAs demonstrating strategies most associated with qualitative approaches to FCENJs demonstrating strategies most associated with quantitative approaches, with FCEJs between the two. By using strategies appropriate to each type of assessment, clinicians will be able to enhance the excellence of their practice.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed2002

Examining the effectiveness of health and safety committees and representatives: a review.

The establishment of a health and safety committee in the workplace and/or the appointment of an elected health and safety representative is believed to foster employee participation and consultation in the workplace. Despite an emphasis within the Australian occupational health and safety legislation towards employee participation in relation to health and safety issues, there is little known about the effectiveness of the strategies used to involve workers in health and safety matters in the workplace. There is anecdotal evidence published in relation to the implementation of health and safety committees and their effectiveness in the Australian workplace. Few opinions however are substantiated by empirical evidence. Significantly more research has been conducted on the role of health and safety representatives in Australia. This paper presents the findings of a review of the literature and identifies the factors that are considered to impact on the effectiveness of workplace health and safety committees and representatives. Several factors are described as being fundamental to the effective performance of committees and representatives. These factors include management commitment, communication, training and information, union involvement, the infrastructure of an organisation, committee processes and the involvement of professional experts. It is concluded that the effectiveness of health and safety committees in Australia is unexplored and it is unknown if these committees achieve the purpose for which they were established. Recommendations are made for future research to be conducted to test the current anecdotal evidence and assumptions associated with the operation and effectiveness of health and safety committees.

Australia↗
PubMed1999

Reliability of work-related assessments.

Insufficient evidence of the reliability of work-related assessments is a major concern in this area of practice. Despite this concern there has been ongoing development of new assessments, while existing assessments have been revised, modified and updated and others are no longer used or available. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent and quality of evidence for the reliability of work-related assessments. STUDY DESIGN: This study examined available literature and sources in order to review the extent which reliability has been established for 28 work-related assessments. RESULTS: The levels of evidence and reliability are presented for each assessment. This indicates that a number of commercially available work-related assessments have insufficient evidence of reliability. For the limited number of work-related assessments with an adequate level of evidence on which to judge their reliability, most demonstrate a moderate to good level. Few assessments, however, have demonstrated levels of reliability sufficient for clinical (and legal) purposes. CONCLUSION: With this study clinicians will be able to examine their options with regard to the reliability of the assessments they choose to use. Interpretation of changes in test results can be considered in the light of the evidence for the reliability of the instrument used.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1999

Validity of work-related assessments.

Insufficient evidence of the validity of work-related assessments is frequently reported as a major concern in occupational rehabilitation. Despite this concern, and the continuing development of new and old assessments, no comprehensive evaluation of the evidence has been conducted. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to first determine the extent and quality of available evidence for the validity of work-related assessments, and then where sufficient evidence was available, determine the level of validity. STUDY DESIGN: This study examined available literature and sources in order to review the extent to which validity has been established for 28 work-related assessments. RESULTS: The levels of evidence and validity are presented for each assessment. Most work-related assessments have limited evidence of validity. Of those that had adequate evidence, validity ranged from poor to good. There was no instrument that demonstrated moderate to good validity in all areas. Very few work-related assessments were able to demonstrate adequate validity in more than one area, or with more than one study, even when contributory evidence was included. CONCLUSION: With this study clinicians will be able to examine their options with regard to the validity of the assessments they choose to use.

Journal Article↗