2012 WHSCC Injured Workers Survey Report and Survey

2012 Injured Workers Survey

Final Report Confidential Reproduction in whole or in part is not permitted without the expressed permission of

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Commission WHS001 1010

Prepared for:

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Commission December 2012

www.cra.ca 1.888.414.1336

Table of Contents Page Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Detailed Findings........................................................................................................................................... 8 General Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Drivers of Satisfaction ............................................................................................................................. 11 Assessing Service Dimensions ................................................................................................................. 12 Gap Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Overall Claim Outcome and Claim Services ............................................................................................ 18 Quality of Service Index – Injured Workers ............................................................................................ 25 Study Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 26

2012 Injured Workers Survey

1

Introduction This report presents the results from the 2012 Injured Workers Survey, conducted by Corporate Research Associates Inc. (CRA) on behalf of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of Newfoundland & Labrador. This study is part of a multi-part stakeholder research agenda aimed at addressing opinions of employers, injured workers, and Commission employees. The Injured Workers Survey was re-designed in 2011-2012 given that it had been 10 years since this tracking research commenced, and it was determined that the time was appropriate to revisit the survey methodology and content to ensure current needs of the WHSCC and its clients were best being met by the research regimen. A detailed description of the consultations leading to the 2012 Injured Workers Survey methodology and questionnaire is included in the Methodology section at the back of this report.

This study obtains feedback from injured workers with respect to the service they received from the Commission, and to track opinion of the Commission over time. More specifically, this study seeks to: 1.

Assess overall satisfaction with the Commission and specific aspects of the Commission’s performance;

2.

Evaluate service performance across key client subgroups, including by region and length of claim; and

3.

Provide strategic direction to the Commission in terms of service delivery and communications.

The results of this study are based on telephone interviews with a representative sample of 303 injured workers, of which 156 were Extended Earnings Loss (EEL) population clients, 75 were Temporary Earnings Loss (TEL) clients, 52 were Rehabilitation clients and 20 were Medical Aid clients. This respondent distribution by client status very closely matches the actual distribution of the WHSCC’s general injured worker client population. The sample consisted of workers drawn from the general client population from across Newfoundland and Labrador.

Interviewing was conducted from April 17, 2012, and April 27, 2012. The overall results for the 303 interviews with the general population of injured workers would be expected to provide results accurate to within plus or minus 5.6 percentage points in 95 out of 100 samples. The survey data was weighted by region.

The table below presents selected communities that compose each sampled region: Region

Areas Included

Corner Brook

Corner Brook, Stephenville, Port aux Basques, Deer Lake, Northern Peninsula, Labrador

Grand FallsWindsor

Grand Falls-Windsor, Botwood, Bonavista North, Gander, Springdale, Baie Verte

St. John’s

St. John’s, Ferryland, St. Mary’s, Argentia, Conception Bay/Trinity Bay South, Burin Peninsula, Clarenville, Bonavista

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

2

Also included in this report are results of a gap analysis comparing injured workers’ ratings of the importance of various criteria when evaluating the Commission as well as their perceptions of the Commission’s performance on these criteria. Such an analysis provides a useful tool for identifying opportunities for improvement with respect to overall opinions of injured workers in the province.

Throughout this report, the bulk of the analysis focuses on trends and levels of satisfaction or agreement with various question statements. In general, only where there are pronounced (i.e., 10 percent or more) levels of dissatisfaction or disagreement, are these levels discussed.

A 5-point satisfaction scale of ‘1’, meaning completely dissatisfied, to ‘5’, meaning completely satisfied, was employed on several occasions throughout this study. In such instances, the reporting of individuals who indicate ‘4’ is meant to represent those who are mostly satisfied. Top-2 box scores represent the proportion of individuals who are completely or mostly satisfied (i.e., who indicate ‘5’ or ‘4’ on the 5point scale). Similarly, the percentage who indicate ‘4’ on a 5-point importance scale where ‘1’ means not at all important and ‘5’ means critically important is meant to represent those who rate a factor as important.

Please note, it is important to underscore that in many instances in 2012 a 5-point question scale rather than a 4-point scale (which had been used in many instances in previous WHSCC-commissioned research) has permitted, among other things, a more robust understanding of the survey data collected.

For example, the percentage of those most comfortable offering a moderate opinion has now been identified via the 5-point scales (i.e., those offering a score of ‘3’ on the 5-point scale).

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

3

Executive Summary Results of the 2012 Injured Workers Survey suggest that perceptions of the Commission continue to be generally favourable, as no statistically significant changes are observed in injured workers’ overall experience or their opinion of the Commission. Those injured workers less satisfied with the Commission explain that their dissatisfaction is primarily due to claim outcome, as well as selected procedural factors.

It is important to note that a tendency is modestly evident within the 2012 data whereby several measures assessing general or overall injured worker perceptions of the WHSCC and its services, tend to receive somewhat lower ratings than do measures for specific WHSCC service aspects, such as politeness, respect accorded, ability to answer questions, hours of operation, and so on. One interpretation of this situation is that when asked early in the survey to provide overall commentary concerning the Commission, injured workers responded based on top-of-mind prevailing perceptions of the organization. However, when queried later in the questionnaire concerning specific aspects of the WHSCC service performance, injured workers offered more favourable ratings, as they responded based on being asked about the actual, specific content of their service interaction with the Commission.

While injured worker clients are generally satisfied across a range of service aspects, somewhat lower ratings were assigned to feeling involved in decisions that affect their claim. Indeed, involvement in decision-making on a case is strongly related to satisfaction with the overall experience of interacting with representatives from the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, as revealed by a regression analysis.

A gap analysis was also conducted, and findings suggest that injured workers would appreciate feeling more involved in decisions concerning their case or claim, as this area produced the largest gap in service expectation and satisfaction with performance. All in all, these results suggest that client involvement in case-related decision-making represents a major opportunity for the Commission to improve perceptions of injured worker perceptions.

It is important to note that another area of remedial focus may include communications to clients, as less positive perceptions were assessed regarding educating clients of the claims process in a manner that is clear and understandable for them.

Despite high expectations of having one’s first compensation cheque being delivered two weeks of the date on which a claim is filed (or indeed earlier), most injured worker clients continue to be satisfied with the Commission with respect to cheque delivery. As in previous years, a majority of clients continue to be satisfied with the outcome of their claim, with many of those less satisfied citing ‘not receiving enough money’ as the primary reason for their dissatisfaction.

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

4

Conclusions Injured workers continue to have a generally positive opinion of the Commission, as overall satisfaction as well as satisfaction with the overall quality of service, each remain stable.

Satisfaction with the Commission is consistent with levels measured in 2010, as over one-half of clients continue to express being completely or mostly satisfied with the overall service experience provided by the WHSCC. Satisfaction with the overall service quality provided by the Commission remains relatively favourable and unchanged. As well, opinions of the WHSCC also continue to be mostly favourable, with two-thirds of injured workers rating their opinions as either good or excellent. Among those relatively few less than mostly satisfied with their overall Commission experience, reasons offered continue to be related to outcomes (e.g. not receiving enough money, and so on) and procedures (e.g. having difficulty reaching staff, and so on).

Satisfaction with the overall quality of service received is most strongly associated with frequency of contact, while claim outcome drives satisfaction with the overall service experience.

A regression analysis was conducted to uncover the aspects of the Commission’s performance that are most closely related to ratings of satisfaction with the overall service experience, as well as the quality of service received from the Commission. Findings reveal three drivers of satisfaction for each model.

Indeed, 64 percent of the variability in ratings of satisfaction with the quality of service can be accounted by the frequency of contact with Commission staff, satisfaction with the overall outcome of a claim, and being treated fairly. Similarly, 56 percent of satisfaction with one’s overall experience with the WHSCC can be accounted by satisfaction with the overall outcome of a claim, feeling involved in the decisionmaking process, and being treated with respect.

The Commission continues to be evaluated positively across key service aspects, although ratings of involvement in decision-making are relatively low.

Consistent with results from previous years, at least seven in ten clients assess the Commission favourably across a range of service areas. Satisfaction with key service elements continue to be generally high for most factors this year, including a significant improvement in client satisfaction regarding staff members’ speed of responding to questions. That said, only six in ten injured workers indicate satisfaction with the level of involvement they feel during their claim process.

An opportunity exists to improve perceptions regarding injured workers feeling involved in the decision-making about their claim.

A gap analysis was conducted to shed light on service areas that may not be meeting the expectations of clients. Gap analyses identify the proportion of injured workers who consider a service factor to be important, but are less than satisfied with the Commission’s performance on that factor. A larger gap is often indicative of an opportunity for the WHSCC to improve client perceptions in that area. This year, involvement in decision-making about one’s claim records the largest gap, suggesting that injured workers would appreciate being more involved in the proceedings surrounding their situation.

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

5

Other areas of focus may include the clarity of decisions communicated by the WHSCC, and the frequency of contact with client groups. With case involvement and contact frequency being significant drivers of satisfaction according to the previously-described regression analysis, it is recommended that the Commission revisit processes in these areas.

While the majority of injured worker clients are satisfied with the outcome of their claim and the length of time it took before receiving their first benefit cheque, for many, outcome dissatisfaction is related to not receiving enough money.

In terms of satisfaction with the overall outcome of their claim, most injured worker clients are indeed satisfied. Two-thirds rate their level of satisfaction as a ‘4’ or a ‘5’ on a 5-point satisfaction scale.

Findings reveal that the top reason for being less than highly satisfied with a claim outcome this year is related to not receiving enough money. Regarding the length of time clients expect to wait before receiving their first cheque, results suggest that a speedy process is expected, as two-thirds continue to provide a timeframe of two weeks or less. Despite these expectations, satisfaction with the length of time clients actually waited before receiving their first benefit cheque has not changed compared to 2010.

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

6

Recommendations The following Recommendations are offered for the consideration of the WHSCC, based on the Conclusions drawn from this study: 1.

The Commission should bear in mind the areas where lower ratings were received in this research.

It is important to note that, to a notable degree, the lowest satisfaction scores are received in areas associated with overall opinion and perception of the WHSCC. Specifically, as noted in the Executive summary, several measures assessing general or overall injured worker perceptions of the WHSCC and its services, tend to receive somewhat lower ratings than do measures for specific WHSCC service aspects, such as politeness, respect accorded, ability to answer questions, hours of operation, and so on. One interpretation of this situation is that when asked early in the survey to provide overall commentary concerning the Commission, injured workers responded based on top-of-mind prevailing perceptions of the organization. However, when queried later in the questionnaire concerning aspects of the WHSCC service performance, injured workers offered more favourable ratings, as they were perhaps being asked about the actual content of their service interaction with the Commission. The implication of this situation is that from a strictly quality of service perspective, there are no major new problems evident as arising from the 2012 research. Having stated that, it is appropriate to note that selected aspects of communications, as well as participation in claims decisions, continue to provide opportunities for heightened service performance by the Commission.

2.

The Commission should continue to focus upon communications with injured worker clients.

Findings indicate that while injured worker clients are modestly satisfied with the communications they receive from the Commission, selected areas continue to present opportunities for improvement. In particular, there is room for improvement in the written communications provided by the WHSCC with regards to the clarity of decisions, and in interactions serving to explain the workers’ compensation process to clients. It may be beneficial for the Commission to review its communications process with respect to, for example, letters concerning the compensation process.

Improving communications of claim decision making and increasing the frequency with which the WHSCC contacts injured workers may allow clients additional opportunities to clarify their question, and improve ratings of their overall experience and satisfaction with the Commission’s service. From experience conducting similar research projects, CRA recommends that the Commission should explore other opportunities to enhance communications with workers, perhaps through relatively inexpensive mass-communication means such as email and/or newsletters.

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey 3.

7

Further participation of injured workers in planning and decision-making related to their case should be explored.

Analysis of the drivers of satisfaction with the overall experience provided by the Commission indicates that feeling involved in the decisions that affect their claim is a key driver for injured workers. That said, the largest gap in performance and expectations of service-related areas exists for feeling involved in the proceedings surrounding one’s case. This finding points to an opportunity for the Commission to increase perceptions of involvement, which should have a positive effect on the overall rating of the Commission.

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

8

Detailed Findings General Overview Injured workers continue to have a generally positive opinion of the Commission, as overall satisfaction as well as satisfaction with the overall quality of service, each remain stable.

Compared to opinion levels measured in 2010, injured worker clients continue to have a generally positive opinion of the WHSCC as two-thirds rate their opinion as excellent (19%; down 3 points) or good (45%; down 3 points). That said, a significant proportion of clients continues to have an only fair (23%; up 4 points) or poor (13%; up 1 point) view of the Commission. No statistically significant changes are evident compared to 2010. (Question 1)

Overall Opinion of the WHSCC 100% 2010 (n=513)

2012 (n=303)

80%

60% 48%

45%

40% 22% 20%

19%

19%

23% 13%

12%

0% Excellent

Good

Only fair

Poor

Q.1 In general, do you have an excellent, good, only fair, or poor opinion of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission?

A subgroup analysis of differences reveals that Temporary Earning Loss clients have a more positive opinion of the WHSCC compared to Extended Earning Loss and Medical Aid clients (as mentioned elsewhere, results concerning Medical Aid clients should be interpreted with caution, given the small survey sample size for this group). Perhaps not surprisingly, clients who have filed an appeal have a poorer view of the Commission than those who have not.

Overall, satisfaction with the overall WHSCC experience remains relatively steady compared to previous years, as just over one-half (55%; down 3 points) of injured worker clients continue to express being completely (20%; down 4 points) or mostly satisfied (35%; up 1 point). Although little fluctuation in overall satisfaction levels is observed over the past decade, it should be noted that the proportion of clients who are completely satisfied has decreased by a statistically significant ten points compared to 2008. Of note, two in ten are somewhat or completely dissatisfied. (Question 2)

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

9

Overall Experience With the WHSCC 100% Mostly satisfied Completely satisfied

80%

60%

55%

40%

28%

59% 54% 30%

56%

55%

28%

25%

31%

58%

34%

55%

35%

20% 27%

22%

29%

28%

30%

2005

2008

24%

20%

2010

2012

0% 2002

2003

2004

Q.2 And how satisfied are you with your overall experience with the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission? Are you completely satisfied, mostly satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or completely dissatisfied? (n=303)

On a related note, significant differences among client groups are noted depending on when their files were opened. Specifically, those with Open Dates prior to 2000 or in 2008 or later are significantly more satisfied with the Commission than those with Open Dates between 2000 and 2007. Further, clients who have filed an appeal with the Commission are significantly less satisfied than those who have not.

In order to further examine the reasons why some clients are dissatisfied with the overall service experience provided by the WHSCC, those who expressed being less than highly satisfied with the Commission were invited to elaborate on their reasoning. This year, the outcome of a client’s service experience with the WHSCC seems to be of primordial importance, as one-quarter of less-than-highlysatisfied clients maintain that they did not receive enough money (23%). Procedural aspects of the service experience also seem to be a major factor contributing to less than high satisfaction, as other reasons include difficulty reaching staff (13%), having problems with the case worker (12%), being turned down (11%), experiencing a negative attitude from staff (10%), waiting a long time until claim was processed (10%), or the waiting period being too long (9%). There is little variation across client subgroups concerning why they hold less than high satisfaction regarding their overall WHSCC experience. (Question 3)

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

10

Injured worker clients also rated their satisfaction with the overall quality of service received from the WHSCC, providing analogous results to satisfaction levels measured in 2010. Indeed, two-thirds (65%; up 2 points) of clients continue to express satisfaction with the overall quality of service received from the WHSCC (30% completely satisfied; unchanged, and 34% mostly satisfied; up 1 point). Two in ten are dissatisfied. (Question 4)

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

11

Across client subgroups, Extended Earning Loss clients express significantly less satisfaction as compared to Temporary Earning Loss clients. Those who have filed an appeal with the WHSCC are less satisfied with the overall quality of service as compared to clients who have not filed an appeal. Further, clients with Open Dates prior to 2000 or in 2008 or later are more satisfied than those with cases opened between 2000 and 2007.

Drivers of Satisfaction Satisfaction with the overall quality of service received is most strongly associated with frequency of contact, while claim outcome drives satisfaction with the overall service experience.

In order to better understand client satisfaction with the Commission, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the factors most strongly associated with satisfaction with the overall quality of service received from the Commission, and with clients’ overall experience with the Commission. In conducting the regression analysis, CRA examined respondents’ opinions concerning various aspects of service delivery. The goal of this procedure is to discover which aspects of the Commission’s performance are linked to ratings of overall satisfaction with the Commission among injured workers in the province. There are two important pieces of information produced in a regression analysis, the Rsquared value for the overall model, and the unique variability explained by each driver. The R-squared value determines how well the variables included in the model predict scores on a target variable (in this case, ratings of overall satisfaction). The percentage figure associated with each variable represents the unique contribution of each driver to the model.

Drivers of Satisfaction with the Overall Quality of Service Received from the Commission Results of the regression analysis reveal that ratings of satisfaction with the quality of service received from the Commission are driven primarily by three factors, which together account for 64 percent of the variability of ratings of satisfaction with the level of service received from the Commission. An Rsquared of this magnitude is indicative of a very strong model.

Regression Model for Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service Frequency of contact: 33%

Satisfaction with overall outcome: 16%

Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Service R2 = 64%

Being treated fairly: 15%

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

12

This year, the regression analysis reveals frequency of contact as the strongest predictor of satisfaction with overall quality of service, accounting for 33 percent of the variability in ratings. Satisfaction with the overall outcome of the claims process is the next-strongest driver, followed closely by being treated fairly.

Drivers of Satisfaction with Overall Experience Results of a second regression analysis reveal that three factors also account for 56 per cent of the variability in injured workers’ ratings of their overall experience with the Commission. An R-squared of this magnitude is indicative of a strong model.

Findings indicate that the strongest driver of satisfaction with the overall service experience provided by the WHSCC is satisfaction with the overall outcome of the claim, followed closely by feeling involved in decision-making related to one’s claim. Additionally, it was found that being treated with respect is an important contributor to the overall Commission experience.

Assessing Service Dimensions The Commission continues to be evaluated positively across key service aspects, although ratings of involvement in decision-making are relatively low.

Injured worker clients were presented with several factors and asked to rate the importance of each factor in evaluating the service provided by the WHSCC, in order to understand which service factors are critically important to clients. Although all factors presented were judged as important by at least eight in ten clients, the top factors of importance include perceiving respect from the WHSCC (95%), the clarity of letters (95%), fairness in treatment from staff (93%), and receiving clear and understandable decisions regarding one’s claim (93%).

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

13

Each of these top factors was rated as critically important by at least eight in ten clients. Other factors, judged to be important by almost all clients, but not critically so to the same extent, include staff politeness (93%), staff member ability to answer questions (92%), feeling involved in the decisionmaking process (92%), and feeling that WHSCC staff members understand their specific situation (91%).

(Questions 5a-k)

Satisfaction with key service elements was assessed pursuant to importance ratings. This year, satisfaction continues to be highest concerning the politeness of WHSCC representatives (85%; up 4 points), although the vast majority of clients are satisfied with the level of respect shown by WHSCC staff members (80%), the Commission’s clarity in letters (78%; up 4 points), and representatives’ ability to answer questions (78%; up 6 points). The increase in satisfaction with service promptness (73%; up 10 points) is shaded in green in the table below, indicating a statistically significant change in 2012.

Clients indicate being least satisfied with feeling involved in the decision-making about their case (58%), and express relatively low levels of satisfaction with the frequency of contact with the WHSCC regarding their claim (64%; up 5 points) and accessibility of WHSCC staff members when needed (66%; up 2 points). It is important to note a positive numerical increase in satisfaction in all key service elements, although one in ten or more injured workers are dissatisfied in terms of accessibility, decision-making, involvement, respect, frequency of contact by the WHSCC, clarity of letters, fairness, and staff understanding. (Questions 6a-k)

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

14

Satisfaction with Service Received from WHSCC % Satisfied (Ratings of 4, 5 on a scale from 1-5 where 1 means ‘completely dissatisfied’ and 5 means ‘completely satisfied’)

2002

2003

2004

2005

2008

2010

2012

80%

75%

76%

78%

82%

81%

85%

-

-

-

-

-

-

80%

Clarity of letters

77%

75%

81%

75%

74%

74%

78%

Ability to answer questions

70%

68%

71%

70%

74%

72%

78%

Promptness

66%

64%

66%

65%

65%

63%

73%

Fairness

64%

62%

69%

63%

67%

65%

71%

Staff understanding

-

-

-

-

-

-

70%

Clear decisions

-

-

-

-

65%

66%

68%

Accessibility

60%

55%

58%

60%

60%

64%

66%

Frequency of contact

61%

61%

62%

59%

64%

59%

64%

-

-

-

-

-

-

58%

Politeness Respect

Involvement

Q.6a-k And using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘completely dissatisfied’ and 5 means ‘completely satisfied’, how satisfied have you been with the service you received from WHSCC? (n=303)

As in previous years, some differences exist across client subgroups. The following section highlights differences between key injured worker subgroups in terms of their satisfaction with the various aspects of Commission service: Accessibility – Medical Aid clients are less likely than Temporary Earning Loss or Rehabilitation clients to be satisfied with this aspect of the Commission’s service. Those with Open Dates prior to 2000 are more satisfied with the Commission’s accessibility than are those with Open Dates between 2000 and 2007.

Promptness – Those least likely to be satisfied with WHSCC staff members’ speed of response to questions include Medical Aid clients compared to Extended Earning Loss or Temporary Earning Loss clients, as well as clients whose claims were opened in 2000 or later compared to those whose claims were opened prior to 2000.

Ability to Answer Question – There are no significant subgroup differences arising from the analysis of this statement.

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

15

Frequency of Contact – Medical Aid clients are less likely to be satisfied with how often the WHSCC contacts them about their claim than are Temporary Earning Loss and Rehabilitation clients. Injured workers who have filed an appeal also tend to be less satisfied with this aspect of the Commission’s service than those who have not filed an appeal. Further, clients whose cases were opened in 2000-2007 are less satisfied in this regard than those whose cases were opened in 2008 or later.

Clarity of Letters – Medical Aid injured workers are less likely to be satisfied with the clarity of letters received from the WHSCC than are Temporary Earning Loss clients. Those who have filed an appeal are less satisfied, on average, than those who have not filed an appeal regarding the clarity of letters. More recent clients with Open Dates of 2008 or later are more satisfied with the clarity of letters than those whose cases were opened between 2000 and 2007.

Politeness – Only one statistically significant difference emerged from the analysis regarding satisfaction with politeness of staff members, as Medical Aid clients are less likely to be satisfied than Rehabilitation clients.

Fairness – Regarding satisfaction with being treated fairly by the Commission, Temporary Earning Loss clients are more satisfied than Extended Earning Loss clients, while those who have filed an appeal are less satisfied than clients who have not. Injured workers with cases opened in 2008 or later are more satisfied in this regard than are those with cases opened between 2000 and 2007.

Staff Understanding – Extended Earning Loss clients are less satisfied than Temporary Earning Loss clients regarding the ability for WHSCC staff members to understand their specific situation. Clients who have filed an appeal with the Commission are similarly less satisfied than those who have not filed an appeal.

Decision-Making – Extended Earning Loss or Medical Aid clients are less satisfied overall with the Commission’s decisions regarding their claim than Temporary Earning Loss clients. Those who have not filed an appeal are significantly more satisfied than those who have. Clients whose claim files were opened between 2000 and 2007 are less satisfied than those whose files were opened prior to 2000, or in 2008 or later.

Involvement – Satisfaction with the level of involvement perceived in the decision-making process regarding one’s claim differs by status, as Temporary Earning Loss clients are almost twice as satisfied as Medical Aid clients. Those who have filed an appeal with the WHSCC are not as satisfied as those who have not filed an appeal regarding involvement in their case, while clients whose cases were opened between 2000 and 2007 are not as satisfied as those whose cases were opened prior to 2000.

Respect – Satisfaction with the amount of respect perceived from WHSCC staff during their interactions is higher among Temporary Earning Loss and Rehabilitation clients compared to Extended Earning Loss clients, those who have not filed an appeal compared to clients who have, and injured workers whose cases were opened in 2008 or later compared to those whose cases were opened between 2000 and 2007.

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

16

Other Service Aspects Clients were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements in six different service-related areas. At least seven in ten injured workers rate the Commission positively on each factor. The WHSCC’s hours appear to be convenient to clients, as the vast majority agree that the Commission’s hours meet their needs (83%). Security is another positive aspect, with eight in ten believing that the WHSCC keeps personal information secure (79%). General communications (76%) and communications regarding benefits entitlement (77%) receive generally sound ratings from three-quarters of clients, while slightly less positive perceptions were found regarding trust of staff (72%) and communications regarding education of the workers’ compensation process (72%). One in ten injured workers do not agree that they received a clear understanding of their benefits from the WHSCC. (Questions 7a-f)

Service Aspects % Agree (4,5) on a scale from 1-5 where 1 means ‘completely disagree’ and 5 means ‘completely agree’

2012 The WHSCC’s hours of operation are appropriate to meet your needs

83%

The WHSCC keeps your personal information secure

79%

WHSCC staff members provided you with a clear understanding of your benefits

77%

Overall, the WHSCC’s written communications to you are clear and easy to understand

76%

The WHSCC’s staff members are trustworthy

72%

WHSCC staff members clearly explained the workers’ compensation process to you

72%

Q.7a-f And using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘completely disagree’ and 5 means ‘completely agree’, to what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? Please say if the statement is not applicable to your personal situation.(n=303)

Clients who have filed an appeal are significantly less likely to agree than are those who have not filed an appeal, that the WHSCC’s staff members provided a clear understanding of benefits, and that they are trustworthy. Further, trust of WHSCC staff members is lower among clients with claim Open Dates prior to 2000 compared to more recent clients with Open Dates in 2008 or later. Clients with Open Dates prior to 2000 are more likely to agree that the WHSCC’s hours of operation meet their needs than are those with Open Dates between 2000 and 2007, as are Temporary Earning Loss clients compared to Rehabilitation or Medical Aid clients.

Subgroup differences are also observed for general communications, as those less likely to indicate that the WHSCC’s written communications are clear and easy to understand include clients from Grand FallsWindsor compared to those in St. John’s or Corner Brook, Extended Earning Loss and Medical Aid clients compared to Temporary Earning Loss clients, those who have filed an appeal compared to those who have not, and clients with Open Dates between 2000 and 2007 compared to more recent clients with Open Dates in 2008 or later.

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

17

Gap Analysis An opportunity exists to improve perceptions regarding injured workers feeling involved in the decision-making about their claim.

Collecting ratings of importance followed by ratings of satisfaction with various service aspects allows for the execution of a gap analysis. Gap analyses compare injured workers’ expectations on a set of service factors with an organization’s performance on those factors, permitting the identification of areas where the organization is not meeting client expectations. Gap scores are calculated as the percentage of injured workers who rate a factor as highly important (i.e., ‘4’ or ‘5’ on a 5-point scale) and provide a rating of less than either completely satisfied or mostly satisfied.

The current study made use of a 5-point satisfaction scale ranging from completely dissatisfied (‘1’) to completely satisfied (‘5’), such that scores of ‘4’ and ‘5’ were deemed to represent being mostly and completely satisfied, respectively. Larger gap scores indicate greater gaps between expectation and performance, and represent areas in which attention could be focused in terms of improving client perceptions.

Gap Analysis Calculation: Example

Accessibility

Completely or Mostly Satisfied

Less than ‘Completely or Mostly Satisfied’

Highly Important 187 77 Not ‘Highly Important’ 13 21 Total 200 98 *Note: Total sample size does not include participants who answered ‘don’t know/no answer’

Total 264 34 298

The preceding table shows an example of a gap analysis calculation. In total, 264 injured workers (or 89% of all 298) rate accessibility as a critically important factor when evaluating the Commission. Of those 264 clients, 77 of them (or 26%) rated their satisfaction with the Commission’s accessibility as less than a ‘4’ or a ‘5’. Therefore, out of all 298 clients who provided valid responses to this question, 77 believe that accessibility is of critical importance, but they are not satisfied in this regard, producing a gap score of 77/298 = 26 percent. In other words, one-quarter of injured workers are of the opinion that accessibility is a critically important factor, but the Commission is not meeting all or most of their expectations in this regard.

In 2012, injured workers perceive involvement in decision-making regarding their file to be the area of greatest opportunity, as shown by grey shading in the table below, suggesting that the Commission is not meeting the expectations of many clients regarding feeling involved in the proceedings surrounding their situation. The next-largest gap concerns the clarity of decisions by the WHSCC regarding one’s claim. Contact frequency between clients and the WHSCC is another area with a sizeable gap, followed closely by accessibility, or how easy it is to reach WHSCC staff members when they are needed. It should be noted that gaps for accessibility, fairness, promptness, clarity of letters, staff ability to answer questions, and politeness of staff have all improved, while gaps for frequency of contact and clear decision-making have increased in size.

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

18

Gap Analysis Categories

2012

Involvement

36%

Clear decisions

28%

Frequency of contact

28%

Accessibility

26%

Fairness

23%

Staff understanding

23%

Promptness

19%

Clarity of letters

18%

Respect

18%

Ability to answer questions

15%

Politeness

11%

Overall Claim Outcome and Claim Services While the majority of injured worker clients are satisfied with the outcome of their claim and the length of time it took before receiving their first benefit cheque, for many, outcome dissatisfaction is related to not receiving enough money.

In terms of satisfaction with the overall outcome of their claim, two-thirds of clients rate their satisfaction as a ‘4’ or a ‘5’ on a 5-point satisfaction scale (65%), where ‘1’ means complete dissatisfaction and ‘5’ means complete satisfaction. Only one in ten are completely dissatisfied, as expressed by ratings of ‘1’ on the same scale (10%). (Question 8)

Satisfaction With Overall Outcome of Claim 100%

On a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘completely dissatisfied and 5 means ‘completely satisfied’

80% % Satisfied (4,5) = 65% 60% 41%

40% 25% 17%

20% 10%

5%

0% 1 Completely dissatisfied

2

3

4

5 Completely satisfied

Q.8 And using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘completely dissatisfied’ and 5 means ‘completely satisfied’, how satisfied were you with the overall outcome of your claim? (n=303)

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

19

Perhaps unsurprisingly given the nature of appeals in general, clients who indicate having filed an appeal are less likely to have been satisfied with the overall outcome of their claim, as compared to those who have not filed an appeal. Clients with claims filed prior to 2000 are more satisfied with the overall outcome of their claim, as compared to those with Open Dates between 2000 and 2007.

Reasons for Less Than High Satisfaction with Outcome Clients who offered scores of ‘1’ to ‘3’ on the previously-described 5-point satisfaction scale were asked why they provided that score to describe their satisfaction with the outcome of their claim. Findings reveal that the top reason for being less than highly satisfied with a claim outcome this year is related to not receiving enough money (34%). In fact, other reasons were indicated by notably fewer injured workers. Just under two in ten clients indicate being less than highly satisfied with the outcome of their claim due to the way the claim was handled (16%), followed by being turned down or cut off (10%).

Other reasons are varied as they were mentioned by fewer than one in ten clients. (Question 9)

Timeframe to Receive First Benefit Cheque In order to gauge expectations regarding the length of time it takes to process a claim, clients were asked what the longest time they believe it should take to receive their first benefit cheque after filing a claim. Results suggest that clients expect a speedy process, as two-thirds provide a timeframe of two weeks or less (66%; down 4 points compared to 2010). Only one-quarter suggest anything greater than two weeks (26%; unchanged). (Question 10)

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

20

Of note, clients who have not filed an appeal are more likely than clients who have filed an appeal to say that they don’t know how long it should take before receiving one’s first benefit cheque. Otherwise, timeframes offered are relatively consistent across client type when considering the groupings shown in the above graph (i.e., ‘2 weeks or less’ and ‘more than 2 weeks’).

An assessment of satisfaction with the length of time required to receive one’s first benefit cheque shows that six in ten clients are indeed satisfied in this regard (59%; up 4 points compared to 2010).

Only a small minority reports being completely dissatisfied, as expressed by the proportion of clients who offer satisfaction scores of ‘1’ on a 5-point scale. (Question 11)

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

21

Satisfaction With Length of Time Before Receiving First Benefit Cheque 100% On a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘completely dissatisfied’ and 5 means ‘completely satisfied’

2002

80%

2003

2004

2005

2008

2010

2012

60% 48% 46%45%

40%

20%

42% 39% 37%

36%

20% 20% 19% 18% 18% 16% 16% 17%17%17% 14% 13% 12% 13%

14%14%

9% 8%

12%11% 7% 7% 6% 7% 8%

8%

4%

4%

0% 1 Completely dissatisfied

2

3

4

5 Completely satisfied

Q.11 And using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘completely dissatisfied’ and 5 means ‘completely satisfied’, how satisfied were you with how long it took to get your first benefit cheque? (2012 n=303)

Despite the lack of client subgroup differences emerging regarding expectations of the longest acceptable length of time before receiving one’s first benefit cheque, analysis of satisfaction in this area reveals that Extended Earning Loss and Medical Aid clients are notably less satisfied than are Rehabilitation clients. Understandably, those who have filed an appeal express significantly lower satisfaction than those who have not filed an appeal, while clients with Open Dates of 2008 or later are more satisfied than those whose claims were filed between 2000 and 2007.

Information Received from WHSCC The overall amount of information received from the WHSCC about their individual claims appears to be satisfactory to injured worker clients, as the majority express satisfaction in this regard (69%). Indeed, very few clients indicate being completely dissatisfied with the amount of claim-related information received (3% ratings of ‘1’ on a 5-point satisfaction scale). (Question 12)

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

22

Satisfaction With Overall Amount of Information You Receive From WHSCC About Your Claim 100% On a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘completely dissatisfied’ and 5 means ‘completely satisfied’

80% % Satisfied (4,5) = 69% 60% 39%

40% 30% 20%

20% 3%

7%

0% 1 Completely dissatisfied

2

3

4

5 Completely satisfied

Q.12 How satisfied are you with the overall amount of information you receive from the WHSCC about your claim? Please use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘completely dissatisfied’ and 5 means ‘completely satisfied’. (n=303)

Satisfaction with the overall amount of information received about a claim appears to be related to several client demographic variables. Those from Grand Falls-Windsor are less likely to be satisfied in this regard than those from St. John’s or Corner Brook, while Extended Earning Loss and Medical Aid clients express lower levels of satisfaction than do Temporary Earning Loss clients. Those injured workers who have filed an appeal are significantly less satisfied than those who have not filed an appeal, while clients with Open Dates between 2000 and 2007 are less likely to be satisfied than are those with Open Dates prior to 2000, or in 2008 or later.

Contact with WHSCC Three-quarters of injured workers have contacted the WHSCC for assistance during the past year (73%; up 3 points compared to 2010), a figure statistically similar to levels recorded two years ago. Indeed, one-quarter of injured worker clients indicate that they have not contacted the WHSCC (26%; down 3 points). (Question 13)

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

23

Have Contacted WHSCC for Assistance During the Past Year 100% 2010 (n=513) 80%

2012 (n=303)

73%

70% 60%

40% 29%

26%

20%

0%

0% Yes

No

1%

Don't know/No answer

Q.13 During the past year, have you on one or more occasions contacted the WHSCC for assistance on any issue?

Rehabilitation clients are more likely than Medical Aid and Extended Earning Loss clients to have contacted the WHSCC for assistance. Understandably given the timeframe, clients whose cases were opened prior to 2000 are less likely to have contacted the WHSCC, than are clients whose cases were opened in 2000 or later.

Among those who have contacted WHSCC staff members for assistance over the past year, threequarters are satisfied with the overall service provided by their contacts (73%). Very few clients express dissatisfaction with their contacts at the WHSCC (6% ratings of ‘1’ on a 5-point satisfaction scale where ‘1’ means completely dissatisfied and ‘5’ means completely satisfied). (Question 14)

Overall Satisfaction With WHSCC Contacts in the Past Year 100%

On a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘completely dissatisfied’ and 5 means ‘completely satisfied’ (Based on those with WHSCC contacts in the past year)

80%

% Satisfied (4,5) = 73%

60%

48% 40% 26% 16%

20% 6%

5%

1 Completely dissatisfied

2

0% 3

4

5 Completely satisfied

Q.14 [IF ‘YES’ TO Q. 13] And overall, how satisfied were you with your contacts with the WHSCC during the past year? Please use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘completely dissatisfied’ and 5 means ‘completely satisfied’.(n=222)

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

24

The only difference that emerged across all client types for satisfaction with WHSCC contacts is observed among clients who filed an appeal, as they are significantly less satisfied than are clients who have not filed an appeal.

Suggestions for Improvement of Services Survey participants were asked to suggest the single most important thing the WHSCC could do to improve the service it provides. The top mention this year is to provide more money and better benefits (16%; up 2 points since 2010), as the proportion of clients who suggest listening to and supporting workers (9%; down 9 points) sustain a statistically significant decrease shown as green shading in the table below. Additional suggestions include providing more access to information (8%; down 3 points), improving communication (7%; up 2 points), and encouraging staff to be more pleasant (7%; up 3 points). A significant decrease in the number of participants who suggest faster delivery of benefits is observed (6%; down 6 points). Finally, it is important to note a significant increase in the number of clients who don’t know/have no answer (32%; up 23 points), while at the same time there is a significant decrease in the number of clients who suggest no improvements (2%; down 23 points). (Question 15 - Total Mentions)

What WHSCC Could Do to Improve Services it Provides to Injured Workers Key Mentions

2002

2003

2004

2005

2008

2010

2012

Provide more money/ better benefits

5%

8%

6%

7%

7%

14%

16%

Listen to/support for workers

9%

7%

7%

9%

7%

18%

9%

Provide more access to information

6%

6%

7%

5%

6%

11%

8%

Improve communication

3%

4%

4%

4%

6%

5%

7%

Encourage staff to be more pleasant

3%

4%

2%

1%

6%

4%

7%

Faster delivery of benefits

4%

7%

5%

8%

5%

12%

6%

Better follow-up

3%

7%

4%

4%

4%

9%

5%

More accessible/more contact

9%

10%

8%

6%

6%

9%

4%

Other

25%

14%

11%

17%

8%

5%

9%

None/No improvements

20%

10%

18%

17%

17%

25%

2%

Don’t know/No answer

31%

36%

34%

33%

34%

9%

32%

Q.15 [TOTAL MENTIONS] What is the single most important thing that the WHSCC could do to improve the service it provides to injured workers like you? (2012 n=303)

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

25

Quality of Service Index – Injured Workers In 2002, CRA created an index to provide tracking of the Commission’s performance with respect to opinions of injured workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. This index was revised in 2012 to include the factors most relevant to the WHSCC’s service performance goals as well as key drivers of the service experience. Specifically, the Quality of Service Index—Injured Workers (QoS-IW) includes injured workers’ satisfaction with the overall quality of service they receive from the Commission (Q4), the frequency of contact with Commission staff members (Q6d), the extent to which they feel they feel they are treated fairly by the Commission (Q6g), satisfaction with the level of involvement in the decisionmaking on their case (Q6j), the extent to which they feel they are being respected by WHSCC staff (Q6k), their overall experience with the Commission (Q8), and satisfaction with their contacts from the WHSCC during the past year (Q14).

This year, the inaugural year of the revised QoS-IW, the Index stands at 72.4.

In creating the Index, average ratings by injured workers on the seven questions were transformed into a scale ranging from 0 to 100. The maximum possible score on the QoS-IW being 100, and the minimum is 0. Responses of “don’t know” or “no answer” were eliminated from the calculation of the Index score, and individuals who provided such a response to at least one question included in the Index were removed from the calculation of the remaining questions.

Across the various client subgroups, Index scores show some variation. In particular, clients who have filed an appeal show lower Index scores than injured workers who have not filed an appeal regarding their claim.

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

26

Study Methodology As noted in the Introduction above, the 2012 Injured Workers Survey reflects a re-design that emerged from Stakeholder consultations in 2011-2012. The following offers highlights of this consultation: Corporate Research Associates (CRA) conducted qualitative research to gain the input of injured workers and WHSCC staff members into the survey and research re-design process. On December 13, 2011, separate focus groups were conducted with injured workers as well as Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (WHSCC) ‘Here and How Committee’ and ‘WHSCC Research Committee’ staff members.

CRA met with the WHSCC’s Survey Committee to gain a high level understanding of their roles and perceptions concerning the survey and research re-design process.

CRA conducted in-depth interviews with two external, non-WHSCC representatives, to gain their insights and to understand their perspective concerning the WHSCC’s survey and research regimen: the Executive Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers Council, and the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers Association.

CRA conducted in-depth interviews with six internal WHSCC management representatives, so as to ascertain their perspectives on previous research processes and content, as well as their expectations and wishes for upcoming research.

CRA reviewed various WHSCC research documents along with publicly available written materials concerning the Commission, to better understand the organization’s research approaches as well as future corporate directions.

CRA organized a Research Summit held in Halifax on March 1, 2012, at which time representatives of all four workers compensation organizations in Atlantic Canada gathered to discuss a wide variety of research content and process matters. Many of these topics were germane to the WHSCC of NL’s review of injured worker research.

From a research process perspective, CRA recommended that a telephone methodology should remain the principal means of quantitative data collection for the injured workers population. While many people consulted perceived advantages or merits in gathering data via online means (e.g., the respondents could complete the survey at his/her preferred time), the limitations inherent in sampling injured workers (many of whom do not have an e-mail address on file with the WHSCC), at the present time make impractical a transition to online data collection from this population.

From a research content perspective, there was widespread agreement that in some respects the questionnaires could be refined and strengthened. The internal WHSCC in-depth interviews undertaken by CRA indicated, not surprisingly, that individual directors or managers are greatly concerned about their

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

27

specific areas of responsibility, and wished to ensure (where appropriate) that questions for injured workers address issues and concerns specifically related to their jurisdiction. Of course, it is impossible in a relatively short questionnaire to accommodate all such requests, even though individually, in isolation, such requests may be meritorious.

Overall, it was noted that in CRA’s experience, representative, random samples of injured worker respondents would be aware of the broad brush strokes of WHSCC practices and approaches, but would perhaps not know or recall granular specifics. Accordingly, to administer still more detailed questions to such respondents, of the nature sought by individual WHSCC directors concerning their specific areas of responsibility, would be counter-productive.

CRA believed, however, that there was a decided value in administering client satisfaction injured worker surveys, of the nature commissioned by the WHSCC, to such representative random samples. CRA’s rationale was that such sampling and data collection permits an overall portrait of opinions to emerge from the targeted populations, free of emphasis upon one or another sub-segment of these populations.

While many injured worker respondents interviewed as a result of such a sampling approach would not have a detailed understanding of WHSCC mechanics and approaches, these respondents nonetheless are indeed representative of this target stakeholder population, and therefore it is prudent to in some measure continue to solicit their high level input and feedback concerning the WHSCC. On the other hand, as suggested above, CRA heard on many occasions from WHSCC directors that they would most benefit from detailed information from their clients, concerning the specific programs under their purview. This is a valid argument, and thus a refashioned research regimen was designed for the injured worker population that meets this information need as well.

That is, it was recognized that there is value in, on the one hand, having a general, high level survey questionnaire that would capture overall perceptions of the WHSCC, while, on the other hand, having sections of the survey that could be administered (at least from time to time) to targeted sub-population segments that would be able to ‘go beyond the general’ and critically examine and assess specific WHSCC programs and services. Thus in 2012, a ‘drill down’ survey of WHSCC Early and Safe Return to Work (ESRTW) clients also was undertaken by CRA, and this research project is reported upon under separate cover.

The injured worker focus group was very insightful in terms of underscoring the topical areas of survey importance for this population, with a very strong emphasis being placed upon the WHSCC ensuring the specific circumstances of each injured worker be recognized, respected, and reflected. Accordingly, steps were taken to ensure that the injured worker survey reflect these areas of interest identified or underscored by injured workers.

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

28

Questionnaire Design The questionnaire used for this study was designed by Corporate Research Associates, in consultation with Commission staff. A decision was made in 2012 to rationalize and streamline the questionnaires utilized across the various employer and injured worker studies, to the extent possible. This endeavour entailed, among other steps, implementing uniform 5-point agreement and satisfaction scales on the questionnaires. In only a select number of instances were scales maintained that were utilized in previous waves of these studies. Specifically, where it was held to be critically important to maintain tracking, the scales used previously were maintained. Introducing 5-point number scales rather than maintaining, for example, 4-point word scales, permits more robust analysis of the survey data in many respects. Prior to being finalized, the survey was pre-tested on a small number of WHSCC injured worker clients to ensure the appropriateness of the questions and response categories being utilized.

Sample Design and Selection The sample for this study was designed to complete interviews with a representative sample of 303 injured worker clients. Furthermore, the sample was developed to ensure representation from each of the Commission’s three regions – Corner Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor and St. John’s. The sampling frame consisted of a current database of clients provided by the Commission from which a random sample was drawn according to the design parameters outlined above. Quotas and weights were assigned by region to ensure appropriate geographic distribution of sampled injured workers. The results of this study are based on telephone interviews with a representative sample of 303 injured workers, of which 156 were Extended Earnings Loss (EEL) population clients, 75 were Temporary Earnings Loss (TEL) clients, 52 were Rehabilitation clients and 20 were Medical Aid clients. This respondent distribution by client status very closely matches the actual distribution of the WHSCC’s general injured worker client population. Given the small sample size, the results for Medical Aid clients should be interpreted with caution.

Survey Administration The survey was conducted by telephone between April 17, 2012, and April 27, 2012, from data collection facilities in Halifax, Nova Scotia. All interviewing was conducted by fully trained and supervised interviewers and a minimum of 10 per cent of all completed interviews were verified either by call-backs or by monitoring. The average length of time required to complete an interview was approximately 13 minutes.

Tabulation and Completion Results Where a sizable percentage of respondents commented that a particular question statement did not apply to them, these respondents were removed from the data tabulation. Among all eligible respondents contacted, the rate of interview completion was 11 per cent. Completion rate is calculated as the number of cooperative contacts (303) divided by the total of eligible numbers attempted (2,745).

The final disposition of all telephone numbers called in this research is shown below in the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association’s Standard Record of Contact Format.

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

29

COMPLETION RESULTS A. Total Numbers Attempted

2,745

Not in service

82

Fax/Modem

33

Non-Residential Number

8

Wrong Number/Duplicate

31

B. Eligible Numbers

2,591

Busy Signal

18

Answering Machine

1,070

No Answer/Call-backs

772

Mid Call Back

4

Illness, Incapable

2

Language Problem

12

Respondent Not Available

81

C. Total Asked

632

Gatekeeper Refusal

64

Respondent Refusal

124

Mid Terminate

9

Hang Up/Never Call List

80

D. Co-operative Contacts

355

Does not deal with the Commission

52

Complete

303

Sample Size and Tolerances The results of the 2012 Injured Workers Study are based on 303 interviews with individuals from the Commission’s injured worker client population. A sample of 303 respondents provides results accurate to within plus or minus 5.6 percentage points in 95 out of 100 samples. The following page includes tables outlining sample sizes of each group, and tolerances.

Sample Distribution Region Sample

Sample Size

Margin of Error¹

Corner Brook

106

± 9.5%

Grand Falls-Windsor

53

± 13.5%

St. John’s

144

± 8.2%

Newfoundland

303

± 5.6%

¹ 95% confidence interval Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

2012 Injured Workers Survey

Size of Sample

30

Sample Tolerances for Percentage Results, by Sample Size 10 or 90%

20 or 80%

30 or 70%

40 or 60%

50%

300 Interviews

3.4

4.5

5.2

5.5

5.7

200 Interviews

4.2

5.5

6.3

6.8

6.9

100 Interviews

5.9

7.8

9.0

9.6

9.8

50 Interviews

8.3

11.1

12.7

13.6

13.9

Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2012

Survey Questionnaire

2012 Injured Workers Questionnaire – General Survey

Final

2

Hello, may I speak with ______________________? My name is _____________________ and I am calling from Corporate Research Associates, a professional marketing research firm. We are conducting a survey on behalf of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador, to determine what injured workers think about the service provided by the WHSCC. All individual information collected on this survey is completely confidential, and will be reported to the WHSCC only at the group level. The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete.

IF ASKED: If you have any concerns about this survey, you may contact Lana Collins in the Communications Department of the WHSCC, toll-free at 1-800-563-9000.

ARRANGE CALLBACK IF NECESSARY – IF RESPONDENT HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY, PLEASE RECORD NAME AND NUMBER AND S/HE WILL BE CONTACTED. PLEASE FORWARD THIS INFORMATION TO PETER MacINTOSH. ENSURE DATA COLLECTORS HAVE ACCESS TO THE MRIA NATIONAL SURVEY REGISTRATION VERIFICATION TELEPHONE NUMBER, TO PROVIDE TO RESPONDENTS AS NEEDED: 1-888-602-6742, EXTENSION 8728. IF THE RESPONDENT WISHES TO CONTACT CORPORATE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, PLEASE ASK THEM TO CALL PETER MacINTOSH AT 1-888-414-1336.

Section A: 1.

General Overview

In general, do you have an [READ RESPONSES IN ORDER] opinion of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission? CODE ONE ONLY 1 Excellent 2 Good 3 Only fair, or 4 Poor VOLUNTEERED 8 Don’t know/No answer

2.

And how satisfied are you with your overall experience with the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission? Are you…: READ RESPONSES IN ORDER – CODE ONE ONLY 1 Completely satisfied 2 Mostly satisfied 3 Somewhat satisfied 4 Somewhat dissatisfied, or 5 Completely dissatisfied VOLUNTEERED 8 Don’t know/No answer

Corporate Research Associates, 2012

2012 Injured Workers Questionnaire – General Survey 3.

3

[POSE Q.3 ONLY IF CODES 3, 4, OR 5 IN Q.2] a. What is the single most important reason why you are less than highly satisfied? PROBE: b. Any other reasons?

DO NOT READ RESPONSES – CODE AS MANY AS APPLY – RECORD FIRST/SUBSEQUENT MENTIONS SEPARATELY 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 98 99

4.

Final

Length of time to process claim Did not receive enough money Hard to reach staff Staff attitude Rushed back to work Did not answer questions/adequate information Policies difficult to understand/not fully communicated Too much run around Turned down/claim cut off The way the claim was handled Waiting period too long Dissatisfied with outcome of claim Too much paper work Poor internal review process Don’t know/No answer Other (SPECIFY: ____________________)

On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “completely dissatisfied” and 5 means “completely satisfied,” how satisfied have you been with the overall quality of service you receive from the WHSCC? PROBE TO AVOID ACCEPTING A RANGE – CODE ONE ONLY 1 2 3 4 5 8

Completely dissatisfied

Completely satisfied Don’t know/No answer

Corporate Research Associates, 2012

2012 Injured Workers Questionnaire – General Survey Section B:

Final

4

Assessing Service Dimensions

I would like to ask about specific aspects of service from the WHSCC...

5.

On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “not at all important” and 5 means “critically important,” how important are each of the following in terms of evaluating the service provided by the WHSCC? Starting with…: ROTATE SERVICE ASPECTS – CODE ONE ONLY PER ASPECT – PROBE TO AVOID ACCEPTING A RANGE – AFTER SIXTH SERVICE ASPECT, SAY: “AND CONTINUING ON NOW WITH A FEW MORE” a.

Accessibility – How important is it to reach WHSCC staff members when you need to?

b.

Promptness – How important is a quick response to your questions to WHSCC staff?

c.

Ability to answer questions – How important is it that WHSCC staff members answer your questions in an understandable way?

d.

Frequency of contact – How important is ongoing contact with the WHSCC about your claim?

e.

Clarity of letters – How important is it to receive clear and understandable letters from the WHSCC?

f.

Politeness – How important is it that WHSCC staff members be polite?

g.

Fairness – How important is it to be treated fairly?

h.

Staff understanding – How important is it that WHSCC staff members understand your specific situation?

i.

Decision-making – How important is it to receive from the WHSCC clear and understandable decisions regarding your claim?

j.

Involvement – How important is it for you to feel involved in making decisions on your case or claim?

k.

Respect – How important is it for WHSCC staff members to treat you with respect?

1 2 3 4 5 8

Not at all important

Critically important Don’t know/No answer

Corporate Research Associates, 2012

2012 Injured Workers Questionnaire – General Survey

Final

5

And I would now like you to rate these specific aspects of service…

6.

For each of the following, using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means “completely dissatisfied” and 5 means “completely satisfied,” how satisfied have you been with the service you have received from the WHSCC? PROBE TO AVOID ACCEPTING A RANGE – CODE ONE ONLY PER ASPECT – AFTER SIXTH SERVICE ASPECT, SAY: “AND CONTINUING ON NOW WITH A FEW MORE” – ROTATE STATEMENTS a.

Accessibility – How easy it was to reach WHSCC staff members when you needed to

b.

Promptness – How quickly WHSCC staff members were able to respond to your questions

c.

Ability to answer questions – How well the WHSCC answers your questions in an understandable way

d.

Frequency of contact – How often the WHSCC contacts you about your claim

e.

Clarity of letters – How clear and understandable the letters are that you receive from the WHSCC

f.

Politeness – How polite WHSCC staff members are

g.

Fairness – Being treated fairly

h.

Staff understanding – How satisfied were you in terms of WHSCC staff members understanding your specific situation

i.

Decision-making – How clear and understandable the WHSCC’s decisions are regarding your claim

j. k.

1 2 3 4 5 7 8

Involvement – How satisfied were you with your level of involvement in making decisions on your case or claim Respect – How satisfied are you in terms of WHSCC staff members treating you with respect Completely dissatisfied

Completely satisfied Not applicable Don’t know/No answer

Corporate Research Associates, 2012

2012 Injured Workers Questionnaire – General Survey 7.

Final

6

And using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means “completely disagree” and 5 means “completely agree,” to what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? Please say if the statement is not applicable to your personal situation.

DO NOT READ BOLDED TEXT – PROBE TO AVOID ACCEPTING A RANGE – CODE ONE ONLY PER OPTION – ROTATE STATEMENTS a.

WHSCC staff members provided you with a clear understanding of your benefits [ENTITLEMENT/COMMUNICATIONS]

b.

WHSCC staff members clearly explained the workers' compensation process to you [EDUCATION/COMMUNICATIONS]

c.

The WHSCC 's hours of operation are appropriate to meet your needs [CONVENIENCE]

d.

The WHSCC keeps your personal information secure [SECURITY]

e.

The WHSCC’s staff members are trustworthy [TRUST]

f.

Overall, the WHSCC’s written communications to you are clear and easy to understand [COMMUNICATIONS]

1 2 3 4 5 7 8 Section C: 8.

Completely disagree

Completely agree Not applicable Don’t know/No answer Overall Outcome

And using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means “completely dissatisfied” and 5 means “completely satisfied,” how satisfied were you with the overall outcome of your claim?

PROBE TO AVOID ACCEPTING A RANGE – CODE ONE ONLY 1 2 3 4 5 8

Completely dissatisfied

Completely satisfied Don’t know/No answer

Corporate Research Associates, 2012

2012 Injured Workers Questionnaire – General Survey 9.

Final

7

[POSE Q.9 ONLY IF CODES 1, 2, OR 3 IN Q.8] a. What is the single most important reason why you are less than highly satisfied with the outcome of your claim? PROBE: b. Any other reasons?

DO NOT READ RESPONSES – CODE AS MANY AS APPLY – RECORD FIRST/SUBSEQUENT MENTIONS SEPARATELY 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 98 99

Section D:

Length of time to process claim Did not receive enough money Hard to reach staff Staff attitude Rushed back to work Did not answer questions/adequate information Policies difficult to understand/not fully communicated Too much run around Turned down/claim cut off The way the claim was handled Waiting period too long Dissatisfied with outcome of claim Too much paper work Poor internal review process Don’t know/No answer Other (SPECIFY: ____________________) Benefits

I would now like to ask about the benefits you received from the WHSCC. 10.

What is the longest time you think it should take to get your first benefit cheque after you have filed your claim?

ALLOW BOTH “DAYS” AS WELL AS “WEEKS” OPTIONS FOR RESPONSES, AS WELL AS COMBINATION OF THE TWO – PROBE FOR AS SPECIFIC A RESPONSE AS POSSIBLE NUMBER OF DAYS: ________ NUMBER OF WEEKS: ________ 998 Don’t know/No answer

Corporate Research Associates, 2012

2012 Injured Workers Questionnaire – General Survey 11.

Section E:

Completely satisfied Don’t know/No answer Communications and Contact

Completely dissatisfied

Completely satisfied Don’t know/No answer

During the past year, have you on one or more occasions contacted the WHSCC for assistance on any issue? DO NOT READ RESPONSES – CODE ONE ONLY 1 2 8

14.

Completely dissatisfied

Moving along to another topic...How satisfied are you with the overall amount of information you receive from the WHSCC about your claim? Please use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means “completely dissatisfied” and 5 means “completely satisfied.”

PROBE TO AVOID ACCEPTING A RANGE – CODE ONE ONLY 1 2 3 4 5 8

13.

8

And using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means “completely dissatisfied” and 5 means “completely satisfied,” how satisfied were you with how long it took to get your first benefit cheque?

PROBE TO AVOID ACCEPTING A RANGE – CODE ONE ONLY 1 2 3 4 5 8

12.

Final

Yes No Don’t know/No answer

[POSE Q.14 ONLY IF “YES” TO Q.13] And overall, how satisfied were you with your contacts with the WHSCC during the past year? Please use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means “completely dissatisfied” and 5 means “completely satisfied.” PROBE TO AVOID ACCEPTING A RANGE – CODE ONE ONLY 1 2 3 4 5 8

Completely dissatisfied

Completely satisfied Don’t know/No answer

Corporate Research Associates, 2012

2012 Injured Workers Questionnaire – General Survey Section F: 15.

Service Improvements and Closing

Encourage staff to be more pleasant Faster delivery of benefits Provide more access to information Provide more money/higher benefits Education for health care providers Better follow-up Ensure the worker is involved in the claim Don’t know/No answer Other (SPECIFY: ____________________)

Have you returned to work after your injury?

DO NOT READ RESPONSES – CODE ONE ONLY 1 2 8 9

17.

9

Moving along…a. What is the single most important thing that the WHSCC could do to improve the service it provides to injured workers like you? PROBE: b. Anything else?

DO NOT READ RESPONSES – RECORD FIRST/SUBSEQUENT MENTIONS SEPARATELY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

16.

Final

Yes No Don’t know/No answer Other (SPECIFY: ____________________)

What is the highest level of education you have completed?

DO NOT READ RESPONSES – CODE ONE ONLY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Elementary school (Grades 1-8) Some high school Graduated high school/vocational Some community/technical college Graduated community/technical college Some university Graduated university Refused Other (SPECIFY: ____________________) This concludes the survey. Thank you very much for your participation.

Corporate Research Associates, 2012