[RehaFuturReal®: Evaluation of Implementation in Organizational Structure and in Counseling Process - An Overview of...

Due to prevailing future challenges in vocational rehabilitation, development process RehaFutur (BMAS) was initiated. In this context, recommendations were made to secure a future-oriented, innovative vocational rehabilitation in Germany. Deutsche Rentenversicherung (DRV) Westfalen transferred these recommendations into a new and applicable counseling concept RehaFutuReal(®). Rehabilitation managers (RM) are central protagonists in counseling process. Therefore, RehaFuturReal(®) focused on optimization of counseling performance. To achieve this aim, rehabilitation managers were taught to work with a case management (CM) based approach. RWTH Aachen supported RehaFuturReal(®) from an academic point of view and conducted a formative and summative evaluation. Primary aim of RWTH Aachen was to support DRV Westfalen during implementation of RehaFuturReal(®) into their organizational structure. Additionally, RWTH Aachen controlled whether transfer of RehaFutuReal(®) in counseling process was successful.

From 04-01-13 until 12-31-14, RehaFuturReal(®) was tested by DRV Westfalen in the intervention district Dortmund with 10 RM. There were 3 selection criteria for the overall sample of N=320 insurants: participants were required to have an active employment status, suffered from integration issues and were in need of support to achieve vocational integration. Evaluation of RehaFuturReal(®) was realized summative (pre-post-comparison) and formative (process-orientated). Evaluative judgment regarding implementation in organizational structure and counseling process was performed by using three-stage-concept of Donabedian (quality of structure, process and results). Thereby, feedback of RM, insurants and employers was taken into account.

Analysis of evaluation results revealed a positive overall impression. Implementation into organizational structure was successful on all 3 quality stages: concept of project and CM-training were an adequate basis and appropriately put into practice by fulfilling prescribed objectives, topics and schedule (quality of structure). Rehabilitation managers identified themselves with the implementation process into DRV Westfalen (grading of CM training: M=1,67; SD=0,65; quality of process). Analogous, consultants reported a high level of satisfaction during implementation of new counseling process (possible span: 1-4; M=3,11; SD=0,33; quality of results). Regarding implementation of counseling process, sample fitted into 3 selection criteria wherefore the correct insurants were picked in RehaFuturReal(®) (quality of structure). CM-orientated counseling approach was properly implemented into everyday work of RM by using CM-instruments for documentation (quality of process). RM were highly satisfied (possible span: 1-4) with counseling performance (M=3,43; SD=0,77). Employers also rated counseling performance positively (M=3,38; SD=0,85). By contrast, surveying insurants revealed a heterogeneous impression of satisfaction (M=2,97; SD=1,03) (quality of results).