Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: Internationally, elective spinal surgery rates in workers' compensation populations are high, as are reoperation rates, while return-to-work rates following spinal surgery are low. Little information is available from Australia. The aim of this study was to describe the rates, costs, return to work and reoperation following elective spinal surgery in the workers' compensation population in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used administrative data from the State Insurance Regulatory Authority, the government organisation responsible for regulating and administering workers' compensation insurance in NSW. These data cover all workers' compensation-insured workers in New South Wales (over 3 million workers/year). We identified a cohort of insured workers who underwent elective spinal surgery (fusion or decompression) between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2018. People who underwent surgery for spinal fracture or dislocation, or who had sustained a traumatic brain injury were excluded. The main outcome measures were annual spinal surgery rates, cost of the surgical episode, cumulative costs (surgical, hospital, medical and physical therapy) to 2 years post-surgery, and reoperation and return-to-work rates 2 years post-surgery. RESULTS: There were 9343 eligible claims (39.1 % fusion; 59.9 % decompression); claimants were predominantly male (75 %) with a mean age of 43 (range 18 to 75) years. Spinal surgery rates ranged from 15 to 29 surgeries per 100,000 workers per year, fell from 2011-12 to 2014-15 and rose thereafter. The average cost in Australian dollars for a surgical episode was $46,000 for a spinal fusion and $20,000 for a decompression. Two years post-fusion, only 19 % of people had returned to work at full capacity; 39 % after decompression. Nineteen percent of patients underwent additional spinal surgery within 2 years of the index surgery, to a maximum of 5 additional surgeries. CONCLUSION: Rates of workers' compensation-funded spinal surgery did not ...

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Problems may arise during the approval process of treatment after a compensable work injury, which include excess paperwork, delays in approving services, disputes, and allegations of over-servicing. This is perceived as undesirable for injured people, health care professionals and claims managers, and costly to the health care system, compensation system, workplaces and society. Introducing an Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) decision tool in the workers' compensation system could provide a partial solution, by reducing uncertainty about effective treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate attitudes of health care professionals (HCP) to the potential implementation of an EBM tool in the workers' compensation setting. Methods: The study has a mixed methods design. The quantitative study consisted of an online questionnaire asking about self-reported knowledge, attitudes and behaviour to EBM in general. The qualitative study consisted of interviews about an EBM tool being applied in the workers' compensation process. Participants were health care practitioners from different clinical specialties. They were recruited through the investigators' clinical networks and the workers' compensation government regulator's website. Results: Participants completing the questionnaire (n = 231) indicated they were knowledgeable about the evidence-base in their field, but perceived some difficulties when applying EBM. General practitioners reported having the greatest obstacles to applying EBM. Participants who were interviewed (n = 15) perceived that an EBM tool in the workers' compensation setting could potentially have some advantages, such as reducing inappropriate treatment, or over-servicing, and providing guidance for clinicians. However, participants expressed substantial concerns that the EBM tool would not adequately reflect the impact of psychosocial factors on recovery. They also highlighted a lack of timeliness in decision making and proper assessment, particularly in pain management. Conclusions: Overall, HCP are supportive of EBM, but have strong concerns about implementation of EBM based decision making in the workers' compensation setting. The participants felt that an EBM tool should not be applied rigidly and should take into account clinical judgement and patient variability and preferences. In general, the treatment approval process in the workers' compensation insurance system is a sensitive area, in which the interaction between HCP and claims managers can be improved.