<< Click to Display Table of Contents >> Navigation:  The 3-step system: Triage, assessment and matched intervention > Screening to identify those at elevated risk > Screening tools > Bespoke screening tools

Some insurers have developed or are developing bespoke psychosocial screening tools for use in their claims management processes.

Iin a psychosocial matched‑care model a fundamental need is to identify all of those at elevated risk.  Missing a proportion means some will remain at elevated risk with unmet needs, delayed recovery, and higher claim costs.  Bespoke tools are best measured against the performance of the ÖMPSQ‑SF, at present the gold standard for screening. 
Where a bespoke scale yields narrower capture, review of at least six months of claims data will help determine that the “low‑risk” group indeed experiences timely, durable return to work.

It is also important for the developers of new scales to evaluate psychometric properties (e.g., reliability and validity), especially whether the scores obtained predict lost time from work and identify potentially modifiable risk factors.  

Considering sensitivity in screening

Tools with high sensitivity identify a greater proportion of people who might benefit from early intervention. The ÖMPSQ-SF typically identifies 40-50% of claimants as requiring additional support, which aligns with research on the prevalence of addressable psychosocial barriers in injury recovery. This approach ensures more individuals who could benefit from targeted support receive it early, which evidence shows leads to better long-term outcomes. Some bespoke tools identify a smaller percentage of claimants as high risk which may risk reduced system effectiveness. Evaluation is therefore important.  

These bespoke tools may integrate with the claims operation system and provide clear direction to case managers on the next steps.  

When evaluating screening tools, organisations might consider:

1.Validation against established measures: Bespoke tools can be compared with the ÖMPSQ-SF or other established measures to assess their predictive accuracy for delayed recovery and return to work. Validation can occur via an analysis of claims data at e.g. 6 months, to confirm the tool’s predictive ability.  

2.Risk stratification thresholds: Different tools identify different proportions of claimants as high risk. This has implications for resource allocation and intervention costs.

3.Dual functionality: Some bespoke tools are designed not only to identify risk but also to provide immediate direction to case managers on appropriate next steps. This can enhance implementation by linking assessment directly to action.

4.Contextual relevance: Bespoke tools may incorporate elements specific to the organisation's context, claim types, or client demographics, potentially improving relevance.

5.System integration: Custom-developed tools often offer better integration with existing claims systems, supporting streamlined workflows.

The development and implementation of screening tools is a work in progress. Comparing different approaches through systematic evaluation can contribute to our understanding of the most effective methods for identifying those who would benefit from early intervention. This evaluation can include consideration of both short-term resource implications and long-term outcomes.