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

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: A debiasing checklist has potential to help clinicians avoid common pitfalls in the care of claims of work injury.