Assessment of a Person’s Ability to Function at Work Principal investigator(s): Susan A. Strong (McMaster University) Co-investigator(s): Susan Baptiste, Donald Cole, Harry Shannon, Edward Gibson (McMaster University); Judy Clarke, Rhoda Reardon (Institute for Work and Health) Institution: McMaster University Read the full version of the research report: Assessment of a Person's Ability to Function at Work (1.7mb, pdf) For more information about this study please contact Ms. Susan A. Strong at e-mail: strong@mcmaster.ca Results The study found that functional assessment (FA) providers are third party providers who operate within a range of ownership structures with variability in staff training and support, approaches and protocols. Assessment approaches share common elements and variations that can be described along five continua: Nature of assessor-evaluee interactions Fixed or flexible protocol delivery Efforts to contextualize Perceptions and use of evidence Provider organizational environment These provide a focus for appraising practics. Conclusions The study found that FAs can be a useful information tool when making return to work and/or rehabilitation plans for workers with soft tissue injuries. For optimal use, FAs need to be considered as one part of a complex process. This process is articulated in the “McMaster Model,” developed by the research team, which depicts important considerations before, during, and after an FA. Objectives Document a profile of the varied functional assessment (FA) practices and outcomes in Southern Ontario. Examine how employers and WSIB use FAs within in a group of workers with soft tissue injuries. Look for differences in FAs’ ability to predict occupational performance and utility for vocational decision making across the range of assessments and contexts. Methods A combined qualitative-quantitative approach gathered information from different sources, using multiple methods to generate a triangulated understanding of practice patterns and underlying factors that influence FA’s utility. A cohort of 70 injured workers was followed prospectively documenting the sequence of events post-FA, the assessment’s use, and FA perspectives. The study included: 23 FA provider site visits and 76 assessor Interviews and questionnaires 70 FA report reviews 67 worker follow-up telephone interviews at 2 and 8 months, including SF-36 103 report user interviews 4 mixed stakeholder focus groups, each including injured workers, WSIB (adjudicators, nurse case managers, LMR providers), employers (occupational health, HR, health and safety personnel), and assessors. Mise en garde