When workers are injured, most organisations wait to see what happens. They watch days accumulate on claims. They track costs as they climb. They measure RTW rates after the fact. But by the time these numbers appear in reports, the damage is done. These lagging indicators tell you what happened, not what you can change.

Lead indicators work differently. They measure the actions and conditions that predict outcomes — the factors you can influence while there's still time to make a difference. 

Understanding the difference

Lagging indicators are outcomes. They include:

• RTW rates
• claim costs
• disability duration, and 
• days away from work. 

They're essential for tracking overall performance, but they're retrospective. By the time you see them, the opportunity to intervene has passed.

Leading indicators are the influencers. They measure the factors that shape whether good outcomes will occur. Did the supervisor have access rapid response strategies, embedded prior to an injury occurring? How quickly did a supervisor contact an injured worker? Did the employer assist the worker before a claim was lodged? Was there a RTW plan in place and how long did it take to put this on the table for consideration? Were modified duties provided? How fair did workers perceive the process to be? 

These are the things that determine whether someone will successfully recover and return to work.

The National Return to Work Strategy 2020-2030 (the strategy) recognises this distinction in its measurement framework. The framework, developed by Monash University's Insurance, Work and Health Group, positions leading indicators as ‘the factors that influence whether those outcomes are achieved’. It's built on the understanding that if you get your lead indicators right, the outcomes follow.

Why lead indicators matter

Research shows that specific workplace actions have substantial impacts on RTW outcomes. Analysis of the 2018 National Return to Work Survey data reveals striking patterns.

When workers with psychological injuries were contacted by their workplace within 3 days of lodging a claim, 77% were back at work at the time of the survey. For those who received no contact from their workplace, only 53% had returned to work. This is a 45% difference in outcomes.

This finding is actionable intelligence. In one workplace intervention conducted 2 decades ago, the goal was to get 90% of supervisors reporting injuries and contacting workers within 24 hours. They measured it. They tracked it. They achieved it. And RTW outcomes improved dramatically.

So lead indicators don't just provide data. They create accountability for the actions that matter. When you measure time to first contact, supervisors know what's expected. When you report on it monthly, it becomes part of the culture. When you achieve 90% compliance, you've built a system that catches problems early.

Compare this to measuring return to work rates at 13 weeks. That number tells you about performance, but it doesn't tell you what to fix. Time to first contact tells you exactly what to do: contact workers quickly.

Other workplace factors show similar patterns. Workers who rated their employer's response positively were 52% more likely to be at work compared to those with negative experiences (79% versus 52%). 

Workers who received employer assistance before lodging a claim were 35% more likely to be at work at the time of the survey interview (74% versus 55%). But only 19% of employees with psychological claims reported receiving this help.

Each of these statistics represents an opportunity for employers to take specific actions. And each can be measured, tracked, and improved.

The lead indicators that drive success

The strategy organises leading indicators into 4 domains — the key players in every RTW journey: 

• The worker (personal factors)
• The workplace (employer factors) 
• Healthcare providers, and
• The insurer (compensation system factors).

In each domain, the factors are measured at 2 time points: before and during the injury, and after the injury occurs.

For employers, workplace factors offer the greatest opportunity for influence. Pre-injury factors like workplace structures to manage injuries and culture, supervisor support and injury reporting systems shape how an organisation supports the health benefits of work. 

Post-injury factors like employer response, early contact, RTW planning and workplace accommodations determine whether recovery goes well or poorly.

Think of it this way: pre-injury factors set the stage, while post-injury factors drive the outcome.

Each factor is measurable. Each is actionable. And each has documented evidence linking it to return to work outcomes.

What the RTW survey reveals

The National Return to Work Survey captures extensive data on lead indicators. Yet this data remains largely underused.

The survey reveals which employers create conditions for success. For workers with psychological injury claims, positive employer response, early contact and pre-claim assistance appear to have dramatically better outcomes.

But the mid-term review of the National Return to Work Strategy shows that workers' perception of employer support has diminished slightly and employer contact rates have improved only marginally between baseline and year 3. These small shifts in lead indicators signal where national performance is stagnating.

Closing the gap 

Workers' compensation authorities collect a lot of claims and survey data but rarely translate this data into lead indicators across the 4 domains. If they do use lead indicators it is usually focused on the insurer domain and rarely on where it matters most — the employer domain. Workers' compensation boards receive reports on claim costs and RTW rates (lagging indicators). But do they see reports on employer contact rates? On the percentage of workers who had a RTW plan in place? On how workers rate their employer's response?

These lead indicators predict the lagging indicators boards care about. They're the early warning system. They often remain buried in survey data, although some schemes are working towards lead indicator reports and integrating the information into operational and performance management systems.

In a future article in this series, we’ll look at how employers can start to build a lead indicator framework.