Issues with Employee Assistance Programs and Psychological Injury Workers' Compensation Claims
- anna1k
- Jul 8
- 5 min read
Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) appear to be the first line of defense for Human Resource departments when employees are observed to be experiencing stress and ill-mental health at work, yet are Human Resource personnel and EAP service providers as effective as they need to be? With poor mental health costing the Australian economy from $12.2 to $22.5 billion each year[1] and with psychological injury workers’ compensation claims on the rise[2], employers are increasingly relying on EAP service providers to reduce, and sometimes in many ways fix the experience of psychological injury they often exacerbate or sometimes even cause.
EAP members throughout Australasia oversee approximately 11,500 organisations, providing coverage to 9.4 million employees[3]. According to the Employee Assistance Professional Association of Australasia, EAP services offer numerous benefits for both employees and employers[4]. Employees gain access to confidential professional support for various work-related and/or personal issues, claiming to lead to improved mental health, reduced stress and increased job satisfaction. Whereas employers are said to benefit from positive employee outcomes, including decreased absenteeism, increased productivity, lower turnover rates and enhanced working environments. As a free service to employees, these outcomes appear important and worthwhile however studies fail to document how well these services fair concerning employees who are at high risk of experiencing a psychological injury at work, that is, employees who are likely to lodge workers’ compensation claims. As such, this article raises some concerns from the perspective of Australian employees after they have lodged a psychological injury workers’ compensation claim pertaining to their experiences of EAP services.
Employees don’t trust EAP
In a recent study by Matthews and Gerald (2021) et. al.,[5] several themes were identified concerning EAP services, not limited to a lack of trust. While some participants argued there was no need for EAP as alternative supports were available to them, other participants stated the uncertainty of EAP services led to scepticism and distrust of EAP. Moreover, the authors argued that there were barriers to EAP, including a lack of knowledge about EAPs, issues of trustworthiness and confidentiality as well as fear of stigma and career jeopardy, the latter which were particularly salient concerns for men in workplaces. If employees don’t trust EAP services, what is the alternative and who should be deemed accountable to workers when they are in need of obvious support?
These findings are supported by Mind Culture Life Australia in which psychological injuries at work has resulted in workers’ compensation claims which are often tremendously damaging for employees for a variety of reasons. Negative outcomes are exacerbated when EAP service providers fail to deliver professional quality. For instance, a recent client explained their experience of EAP, by saying:
I was referred to EAP and I personally reached out to the service provider. I attended the appointment however they had cancelled it without notice and did not notify me. I did not pursue EAP due to their poor service.
Another client echoed a similar sentiment, by saying:
I had an issue about work overload as my manager was away for several weeks. It was assumed that I would run the entire department while he was on leave, with no additional pay or support, which I felt was very unfair. When I raised my concern to Human Resources, they said that I wasn’t entitled to more pay or support and immediately referred me to the EAP without further discussion. I felt my concerns were ignored. They did not understand the pressure I was experiencing at work. I felt they brushed my issue under the carpet and at the same time, brushed me away as quickly as they could by referring me to the EAP as a way to avoid dealing with the issues that were causing me stress at work … I called the EAP and was met with little helpful advice other than to do my best in my current predicament. I found the service a complete waste of time.
When both clients were asked individually about how their psychological workers’ compensation claim could have been avoided, their responses reflected a similar sentiment in which Human Resource personnel should have taken an active role in communicating meaningfully with them as they were both obviously under stress at work. When asked how an active role should have been undertaken by Human Resources, both clients stated that listening to their concerns in an open and active manner was vital, followed by supporting them in ways which they felt were worthwhile and meaningful.
Out the outset, it was clear that both clients experienced sub-optimal dialogue with their respective Human Resource personnel leading to a lack of understanding only to then experience a poor EAP service, which combined led to psychological workers’ compensation claims. Whilst these are only two examples, countless others that are similar to them proves that some workers are falling through the gap when it comes to their mental health at work and that increasing efforts are required to connect meaningfully with employees who are obviously in need of help.
Now more than before, employees require their Human Resource personnel to actively reach a shared understanding of concerns and support their employees by finding worthwhile solutions to their concerns. Key features required of Human Resource personnel include understanding employees by asking questions, listening and clarifying concerns, agreeing on identified goals and developing a shared understanding of actions, roles and responsibilities. Moreover, Human Resource personnel should actively follow up on their supportive activities with workers. Indeed, reflecting, evaluating and learning through the process is also a worthwhile pursuit[6].
Building trust to avoid psychological injury workers’ compensation claims
With psychological workers’ compensation claims on the rise[7], Human Resource personnel must take an increasingly active role in assisting employees who are experiencing stress at work. As mentioned, one way to take an active role is by remaining open to employees, both cognitively and emotionally as a way to help them manage emerging ill-mental health as a result of psychological injury. Employees who are experiencing psychological injury are in need of this support in conjunction with reliable therapeutic EAP service delivery in which both Human Resource personnel and therapists engage, enable and permit employees to express their subjective viewpoints without being subjected to biased interpretations such as underlying psychopathology.
Perhaps the question about EAP services is not only their professional quality but the extent to which their therapeutic interventions are designed to serve the employee’s interest or that of the employer who is paying the bill, particularly when these interests clash, as they often do. For this reason, a great deal of research is required to ascertain EAP effectiveness for those who have lodged psychological injury workers’ compensation claims. Nonetheless, Human Resource personnel should increase the quality of their interactions with staff to avoid the all-too-often downward spiral associated with psychological injury workers’ compensation claims and ill-mental health when staff express stress at work.
Comments