WALES HIGHER EDUCATION SICKNESS ABSENCE REPORT 2010 A joint Report by the Human Resources Directors Group Wales and the Wales Higher Education Health & Safety Group Data Collated and Reported May 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2010 Report is similar to last year s first attempt at producing Sickness Absence & Causation Performance Indicators specifically for the Wales Higher Education Sector. It is noted that an additional dataset, categorising staff where possible into full-time and part time groupings has been collected this year. This dataset was collected to try and reduce the headline impact of the wide ranging practices currently employed across the Sector for recording part-time sickness absence periods. Note: The part-time data recoding anomaly was outlined in the 2009 Report. As with the 2009 Report all statistical information offered should be considered as indicative values only. ABSENCE RATES 2010 The reported Sickness Absence Rates for Universities in Wales during 2010 are: Days Absence based on FTE Employees: 7.36 days Days Absence based on Full-Time Employees: 5.82 days Percentage of time lost per FTE Employees: 2.82 % Percentage of time lost per Full-Time FTE Employees: 2.23 % Percentage of total time lost that is attributable to long-term absences: 52.62 % Using the FTE indicator value of 7.36 days (absence rate) the Wales University Sector performs as follows against a selection of other employer groups: Selection of Comparators School Teachers Wales 2009 13 Wales Local Government 09/10 10.9 Public Sector UK (CIPD) 2010 9.6 UK HE Sector (DLA Piper) 2010 6.2 Wales HE 2010 7.36 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Days Sickness Absence Per Year per FTE Employee ABSENCE CAUSATION A crucial part of this Report is to not only gain valuable data on absence rates but to develop a picture of longterm absence causations. Again the two highest reported Long-Term (periods of over 20-day) Sickness Absence Causations were: Psychological Conditions (incl. depression, stress-related, anxiety): 23.69 % Musculoskeletal Conditions (incl. back pain, fractures): 23.24 % WHAT NEXT? It is clear from this year s data collection exercise that standardising information on sickness absence and causation will not be easy to implement across all institutions. It is therefore proposed that a Paper identifying options for improving data collection and accuracy is produced. The Paper should outline data improvement options including Tree & Branch causation classifications, based on the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) Standard. Such an approach should retain flexibility for those institutions who desire less detailed information whilst also developing a more robust dataset for understanding health needs and trends.
WALES HIGHER EDUCATION SICKNESS ABSENCE REPORT 2010 1. INTRODUCTION This Report has been produced on behalf of both the Wales Higher Education Health & Safety Group and the University Directors of Human Resources Group Wales. The primary purpose of the Report is to provide benchmarkable data for sickness absence rates and causations for the University Sector in Wales. 2. PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS Each University in Wales was contacted to participate in the production of this Report. The following Institutions contributed to the study through providing some or all of the statistical information requested: Aberystwyth University Bangor University Cardiff University Cardiff University of Wales Institute (UWIC) Glamorgan University Glyndwr University Swansea Metropolitan University Swansea University The support and enthusiasm shown by each participating University was again welcomed and made this Report possible. Such cooperation also highlights the opportunities available for the Sector to work together and learn from one another. 3. HEADLINE STATISTICS Days lost due to Sickness Absence as a rate and percentage: a. Average Days Lost to Sickness Absence per (all staff) FTE as a percentage of available days lost: 2.82 % (based on 260.175 days available); [Range: 1.92% - 4.32%] b. Average Days Lost to Sickness Absence for Full-Time staff as a percentage of available days lost: 2.23 % (based on 260.175 days available); [Range: 1.73% - 2.81%] c. Average Days Lost per FTE member of staff: 7.36 days per year; [Range: 5.02 days - 11.26 days] d. Average Days Lost per Full-Time members of staff: 5.82 days; [Range: 4.52 days - 7.33 days] e. Average Days Absence per FTE not including Long Term Sickness Absence (over 20 days) occurrences 3.23 days per year; [Range: 2.42 days - 4.44 days] f. Percentage of the total time lost attributable to Long Term Sickness Absence (over 20 days): 52.62 %; [Range: 38.84% - 61.15%] Sickness (illness) categories reported under long term sickness absence (over 20 day absence periods): g. Psychological (including stress-related, mental-ill health, nervous disorders) at 23.69 %; [Range: 14.71% - 37.11%] h. Musculoskeletal disorders (including Back pain) at 13.76 %; [Range: 3.77% - 23.28%] i. Injuries or Fractures at 9.48 %; [Range: 6.25% - 12.93%] j. Cancers and Tumours at 6.84 %; [Range: 2.94% - 12.50%] k. Respiratory Conditions at 5.33 %; [Range: 2.52% - 12.50%] l. Other causes (total of remaining causations) at 40.90 %; [Range: 31.03% - 51.96%]
4. COMPARISONS Sickness Absence Rates The headline data obtained by the 2010 Report is compared with other Employer Groups/Sectors in Wales and the UK [Figure 1]. As it is not possible to evaluate how other employer sectors and professional bodies recorded and collated data and whilst taking into account the limitations of the values produced by this Report, the comparison offered below should only be used to gauge performance. Sector Comparators CBI 2010 6.5 School Teachers Wales 2009 13 Wales Local Government 09/10 10.9 Manufacturing Sector UK (CIPD) 2010 6.9 Public Sector UK (CIPD) 2010 9.6 All Employer Rate UK (CIPD) 2010 UK HE Sector (DLA Piper) 2010 Wales HE 2010 6.2 7.7 7.36 5. ACCURACY OF DATA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Days Per Year per FTE Employee Figure 1 As noted last year, data recording practices for full and part-time staff varies across the Sector. This has a notable and negative impact on the reliability of the Sector statistics and individual institutional data. For example, when examining the data provided from five institutions for average days lost through sickness for part time staff the coefficient of variation (a measure of the variability of data relative to the mean value) was almost 60%. There was a seven-fold difference between the highest and lowest averages and the most likely explanation for this variability is that different institutions record days lost for part time staff in very different ways. Given the large proportion of part time staff at most institutions such practice could have substantial impacts upon the reliability of the whole dataset. When examining the average days lost per FTE and the FTE percentage days lost across all institutions the coefficient of variation was again quite high at 25%. Removing the data from a single institution reduced the coefficient of variation to around 15%. When comparing the data from this same institution with the average of the rest a difference of more than four standard deviations is seen. It is highly likely that disparity of such magnitude is due to discrepancy in reporting and recording information rather than a genuine difference in sickness absence. These examples further illustrate the importance of standardising methodologies before attempting to draw any firm conclusions from comparisons within or outwith the Sector. The categorisation of absence (illness) causation is similarly highly variable, particularly when considering musculoskeletal and psychological conditions where coefficients of variation of 50% and 32% respectively were seen. Again it is unlikely that such variability is due to real difference in the prevalence of certain medical conditions. It is with the above in mind that the caveat regarding indicative value is provided by this Report and further recommendations are made.
6. POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS As shown by the 2009 and 2010 Report there are two primary difficulties associated with gathering accurate information, enabling more robust benchmarking and inter-institutional evaluations to be undertaken. Namely the lack of a standard absence record keeping protocols and the lack of an agreed sickness classification procedure. Without agreeing what and how this is recorded it is not possible to accurately evaluate performance or fully understand local and national health impacts. Three possible development options are outlined below for further consideration: i. Not all institutions record absence in accordance with the CIPD definition 1 of absence which results in both over and under recording; this is particularly prevalent for part-time staff and when recording sickness absences which span a weekend. As the recording of sickness absence data within most institutions is primarily within the remit of Human Resources Departments it is recommended that the Directors of Human Resources Group consider whether it is actually possible to standardise what and how absence is recorded. Producing standard absence recording criteria will have significant implications for a number of institutions as their current arrangements and practices do not necessarily align contracted days of work with sickness absence periods. For a number of Universities it would be necessary to manually compare contracted hours with absence periods to identify the true absence. Such a manual exercise is not considered realistic or practical and aligning contracted hours with absence records electronically is seen as imperative if a standard approach is to be achieved and more accurate Sector and Institutional data is reported. ii. The type and detail of recorded absence/illness information varies from institution to institution; in a number of cases a modification of the IOM classification system is used and in some cases locally developed classifications are utilised. It is suggested that the Wales Health & Safety Group seek to develop Tree and Branch classifications for sickness causations. Such a classification should, where possible, be based on the recommendations of the HSE Research Report (RR310) Managing Health at Work Recording and Monitoring Information on Sickness Absence including Work Relatedness. Currently only a small number of Welsh Universities use a national classification system 2 or a variant of it; with others either not recording absence causations in any detail or preferring locally developed classifications. There are potentially a number of benefits to accurately recording absence causations; in particular, reliable data will more readily enable the identification of good institutional practices, allowing the development of a national and local health picture so resources and effort can be directed to support health at a Wales-wide and institutional level. Understanding what illnesses are most prevalent across the Sector will make future Wales-wide initiatives to help reduce and support good health practices more likely. This will also provide an opportunity to build upon current good practices and develop joint-working initiatives. iii. An alternative approach. Alternatively, the benefits of implementing an all-wales Standard for recording and categorising sicknesses and absences are both definable and quantifiable and it is felt that a funding application to the Higher Education Funding Council Wales (HEFCW) for developing National Standards may be received favourably. As most institutions operate different management information software and systems it is important, when developing such Standards, that the limitations and capabilities are appreciated and a number of options to improve data value are developed. If both Groups consider this as their preferred option it is suggested a small working group or forum is established to identify options for leading and developing the Funding Application. 1 http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/absence-measurement-management.aspx 2 For example: Institute of Occupational Medicine classifications
7. COMMENTS This Report provides averaged data for the Wales HE Sector for the calendar year 2010 and is based on returns from 8 Universities. Institutional data is not available from the author. The Report has been produced by Health and Safety Services, Bangor University, College Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2DG, on behalf of the Health & Safety and the Directors of Human Resources Groups. For further information contact: gareth.w.jones@bangor.ac.uk or e.riches@bangor.ac.uk