iscover
The increased number of workers’ compensation claims for mental health injuries, as highlighted in The Courier Mail and reflected in WorkCover Queensland’s decision to increase employer premiums, is not exclusive to the state of Queensland.
Over the past year, there have been reports out of Victoria of a compensation system in debt, with much of the blame being placed on the increased number of and the costs associated with mental health injury claims.
Mental health injury claims only make up a small proportion of all workers’ compensation claims (12 per cent in Queensland for 2022–23) within each state and nationally. So, why do these claims become the focus of discussion when workers’ compensation premiums are increased?
As a psychologist who has worked within the workers’ compensation system for over a decade in both injury management and treatment roles, here’s my analysis of the situation.
Why the increase in claim numbers in recent years?
Work-related mental health injuries are typically caused by one of the following: a workplace trauma – significant accident, assault, abuse or violence, or significant event; bullying or harassment by a co-worker or supervisor; or work overload – excessive and unreasonable demands. The reported increase in these types of claims indicates that there are some very real problems occurring in our workplaces that need addressing in order to keep workers safe.
First, data on workplace assaults, abuse and violence shows an increase in the incidence of such behaviour towards our frontline workers and those in other customer-facing industries (e.g. retail and food services). Second, it indicates that employers are failing in the prevention and early identification of psychological hazards such as inappropriate behaviour, bullying, and harassment; and third, that there is limited awareness around work overload and burnout.
There is one positive associated with the increase in work-related psychological injuries – a greater awareness and acceptance of mental health and wellbeing, and the need to be proactive in seeking support and treatment when needed. It also indicates people are more aware of what is acceptable in the workplace and are less inclined to “put up with” poor behaviour, culture, or conditions. This has become more prominent since the pandemic, as there has been a shift in attitudes towards work, with workers having a greater focus on individual wellbeing and creating a better sense of balance across their lives.
This has pushed people to evaluate the role of work in their lives and take action where aspects of their job may be affecting their health and wellbeing.
Rises in the cost of living and limited subsidies for mental healthcare may have forced individuals to seek support through formal avenues, such as compensation, when they’ve identified a work-related health concern. In the past, many workers may have sought support privately in an attempt to resolve issues without notifying their employer due to concern about the impact it may have on their employer or their employment. For many, this is no longer an option.
What about the higher costs, greater durations, and fewer return-to-work outcomes for mental health injury claims?
Typically, the best outcome for a worker (and their employer) after a workplace injury is for them to be able to return to work as soon as possible and to remain healthy. Return to work and claim outcomes are dependent on the type and severity of the injury, nature of the job and work environment, timeliness of appropriate treatment, and level of support available to the worker – specifically, the supportiveness of their workplace.
Where trauma is the cause of injury, treating parties consider the potential for re-traumatisation when supporting the worker in returning to work. While a core goal of treatment is to develop effective strategies for managing triggers in day-to-day life, there is an increased risk of re-injury should the person be exposed to another significant event. As such, for those where their pre-injury job is not appropriate, vocational counselling and retraining become essential aspects of their return to work journey.
With regards to injury from workplace bullying and harassment, or overload/burnout, difficulties can occur due to HR investigations and processes, as well as strained relationships between the worker and their employer. How the workplace responds to complaints of bullying, harassment, or other inappropriate behaviours can determine whether the worker can return to the workplace, as their mental health improves.
What are the solutions?
In 2022, Queensland released the “Managing the Risk of Psychosocial Hazards at Work” Code of Practice, which clearly defines the types of workplace hazards that put workers’ psychological safety at risk and provides guidelines to support employers in preventing injury.
A stronger focus on prevention will have a direct impact on the number of mental health injury claims being made. However, this relies on employers having adequate education and resources to be able to effectively identify and address psychological safety concerns. It also relies on employers’ understanding that psychological safety is as important as physical safety and has a direct impact on worker engagement, productivity, and health and wellbeing.
In industries where there is a greater risk of psychological injury, such as frontline services, having early intervention services that are accessible and focused on managing acute symptoms while building effective coping skills helps to reduce further mental health problems. Such initiatives, if implemented effectively, become a tool for mental health maintenance and allow workers, as needed, access to support that might not be available to them elsewhere.
Unfortunately, some workplace injuries will still occur, even with good preventative measures. When an injury does occur, appropriate treatment and rehabilitation pathways must be accessible early.
The availability of psychologists to those in need of treatment has been a significant issue coming out of the pandemic. Within the workers’ compensation arena, the issue is worsened by restrictions on who can provide treatment, greater administrative and reporting demands, restricted fees that are not commensurate with the level of work, and a general difficulty in having recommendations approved, which forces many psychologists out of undertaking this work.
It is these issues that must be addressed to reduce claims and improve people’s wellbeing in the workplace.
Dr Katrina Norris is a director of the Australian Association of Psychologists.
Jack Campbell
Jack is the editor at HR Leader.
