A Debiasing Checklist Has the Potential to Improve Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Outcomes in Claims of Work Injury.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to identify the most frequent deviations and factors associated with the number of deviations from a work injury debiasing checklist among claims referred for peer review. We retrospectively reviewed 141 work injury claims sent to a musculoskeletal specialist for additional scrutiny and counted deviations from a checklist developed to catch common pitfalls in evaluation and treatment. Nearly all claims had a deviation (99%) including mislabeling of noninjury pathophysiology as an injury (92%), overlooking mental health (91%), and work restrictions in the absence of risk or incapacity (91%). There were no associations between the number of deviations from the checklist and any patient or clinician factors. A debiasing checklist has potential to help clinicians avoid common pitfalls in the care of claims of work injury.