Long-term care facilities that created a favorable work environment actually drew more worker’s injury claims than their peers, according to results of a new Canadian study.
The lead researcher told McKnight’s Long-Term Care News on Wednesday, however, that the finding isn’t necessarily a bad thing for providers.
“This suggests that the homes have a culture and safety climate that encourages and facilitates reporting of injuries that occur while on the job,” said Stephanie Chamberlain, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Alberta College of Health Sciences.
“Facility leads should strive to create an environment where staff are able to report injuries sustained on the job,” she added. “If staff are not aware or enabled to do this, and if they do not report issues, the facility leadership cannot resolve the problems at an organizational level and it leaves other staff and residents at risk of further injury.”
Chamberlain and her co-authors reviewed nearly 3,500 workers’ compensation claims from 25 long-term care homes in Alberta, Canada, and sought to understand their association with a building’s staff, organizational and resident characteristics and severe injury to workers.
Just over 5% of claims in a four-year period resulted in severe injury with more than 31 days of disability. Nearly 71% did not result in any days of disability, and most workers cited injuries to muscles, tendons, ligaments or joints.
Chamberlain’s study, published in Human Resources for Health Wednesday, noted that previous research found a poor workplace safety climate “increases the likelihood of employee dissatisfaction and turnover intention.”
But it remained unclear how modifiable factors in the work environment affected worker injury. In this study, the team used Canadian tools known as TREC (Translating Research in Elder Care) and ACT (a survey-based instrument that assesses organizational context) to gather information about workplace structure and environment. They then matched those characteristics and others related to ownership and size to claims patterns.
Facilities were grouped into four units based on their scores, with those with the highest organizational context having the most favorable work environment. It was that top group that had the highest frequency of claims, “somewhat counterintuitively,” as the researchers noted.
“This finding is inconsistent with research that examined variation in staff injury rates in intermediate care facilities and found that facilities with more favourable staffing levels and supportive work environments (e.g., supportive management, worker perception of employer fairness) had lower staff injury rates,” they wrote. “Our descriptive results suggest that homes with a more favourable work environment had more claims may be due to organizations fostering a safety climate that encouraged greater reporting of actual and potential injuries.”
Conversely, facilities that likely experienced underreporting — as many as 40% of eligible claims go undocumented, according to previous studies — could be setting themselves up for worse consequences. The researchers noted that care aides, those at greatest risk of injury in this study, “often face precarious employment” and fear perceived repercussions of reporting.
“Underreporting can result in pervasive issues unaddressed, leading to further injury, and ultimately has an effect on the workforce including staff reducing hours or leaving the job altogether, both of which have significant costs to the facility and the industry as a whole,” Chamberlain told McKnight’s.
Interviews with injured workers and service providers identified four main areas that play a role in complicating, prolonging or choosing not to pursue compensation claims: access to healthcare, limited understanding of workers compensation requirements, confusion about the claims process, and decision-making authorities.
