Managing Employees Undergoing Total Hip and Knee Replacement: Experiences of Workplace Representatives.
Fiona Nouri, Carol Coole, Melanie Narayanasamy and 3 others
PMID 30132175WHAT IT FOUND
Workplace representatives said they tried phased hours, modified duties, equipment changes, alternative roles and colleague support before and after hip or knee replacement.
They also said lack of medical advice about restrictions and timelines made planning hard.
Key findings
01Workplace representatives described accommodations before and after surgery, including changes to role, equipment, hours and duties.
02Representatives wanted clearer orthopaedic advice about work restrictions and timelines, and said GP fit notes seldom included work modification advice.
03Some representatives reported that adjustments were not enough, with employees staying on modified duties or not returning even after accommodations.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study asked workplace representatives, not employees, so it does not show how employees experienced the accommodations. The authors say participants may have wanted to present a positive image, and less supportive representatives may have been less likely to take part. The authors say the diverse sample made data saturation unlikely. The themes were not confirmed by participants. The study did not separate hip replacement from knee replacement, although return to work may differ. It reports perceptions and experiences, not measured return to work outcomes or tested interventions.
Declared interests
Funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme. The supplied text does not state author conflict-of-interest declarations.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the accommodations described by workplace representatives as evidence they improve return to work. This was a qualitative interview study of employer perspectives, not a trial of a workplace intervention.