The question asked most often about corporate health investment is whether the spending has a measurable return. This case study examines the change that emerged over 18 months at a manufacturing organisation across lost workdays, accident frequency, employee satisfaction and cost.
What distinguished the programme was not the introduction of a single service but the fact that three separate problems on the ground were addressed together in the same period: examination infrastructure, emergency response capacity and employee stress.
Company Profile
This Istanbul-based metal manufacturing company, with 3 factories and 520 employees, is one of Turkey's leading industrial equipment manufacturers. In 2021, its lost workday rate was 40% above the sector average.
With three factories running shift patterns, concentrating health provision at a single location was not viable, and this directly shaped the design of the programme.
Measuring the baseline against the same metrics before the programme began proved decisive. Had lost workdays, accident frequency, employee satisfaction and health cost per employee not been recorded at the outset, it would have been impossible to say whether the change seen 18 months later came from the programme or from sector-wide fluctuation.
Identifying the Problem
The initial assessment identified three core issues:
- Inadequate periodic examination infrastructure — examinations were not tied to a regular calendar, and the tracking of results and recall process did not run systematically.
- Insufficient post-accident rehabilitation process — the return-to-work process after an accident was not structured, which lengthened the duration of lost workdays.
- High stress levels among employees — in a shift-based production setting, stress emerged as a factor feeding accident risk directly through distraction.
Recognising that these three issues fed one another proved decisive for the programme's design: risks were spotted late because examination infrastructure was weak, every accident ran long because rehabilitation was unstructured, and accident frequency would not fall while stress remained high.
Programme Implemented
A programme of four components was designed, each corresponding to one of the issues identified.
1. On-Site OHS Service, 2 Days a Week
An on-site occupational health and safety service was introduced 2 days a week in collaboration with MediPlus. The clearest effect of on-site provision was that access to examinations stopped being an obstacle for employees: the need to lose working hours or leave the factory for an appointment disappeared.
That regularity also allowed periodic examinations to be tied to a calendar and the tracking of results to become systematic — a direct answer to the first issue.
2. Contracted Emergency Response Protocol
An emergency response protocol was established with Net Ambulans. The aim of the protocol was not only to guarantee ambulance access but to settle the flow to be followed at the moment of an accident in advance: who makes the call, what information is given, which gate the vehicle enters by, and which facility the patient is transferred to.
Having the post-accident process defined from the outset laid the groundwork for structuring rehabilitation and the return-to-work process as well.
3. Monthly Group Psychological Support Sessions
Monthly group psychological support sessions were included in the programme. Choosing a group format made participation easier within a shift-based production schedule, and it also moved psychological support from being an individual exception to part of the team's ordinary routine.
Addressing the third issue — high stress levels — meant targeting a factor that affects accident risk through distraction.
4. Canteen Menu Improvement With a Dietitian
The canteen menu was improved with a dietitian. In shift work, meal patterns have a decisive effect on energy fluctuation through the day and therefore on attention; the menu changes were consequently the most visible wellbeing intervention and the one that reached the widest group.
Results After 18 Months
The measurement used the same method as the baseline values recorded before the programme began. The change measured 18 months after implementation:
- Lost workdays reduced by 54%
- Accident frequency rate dropped by 38%
- Employee satisfaction score rose from 62 to 84 (out of 100)
- Annual health cost per employee decreased by 29%
What Produced These Results?
It is notable that the fall in lost workdays was larger than the fall in accident frequency. The gap between those two figures shows not only that fewer accidents occurred but that the accidents which did occur were closed out more quickly — that is, prevention and rehabilitation worked together.
The reduction in health costs emerged despite services being added. The main reason is that early detection and regular follow-up reduce the number of advanced cases; the cost of a preventive service is lower than the cost of the case it prevents.
The rise in the satisfaction score is decisive for the programme's sustainability: a package that goes unused produces no results, so employee adoption is a precondition for the other three metrics.
Introducing all four components in the same period makes it harder to attribute each improvement to a single intervention. Against that, because the three issues identified fed one another, sequencing the components would have delayed the programme's overall effect. In this case simultaneous implementation was a deliberate choice.
The additional difficulty of a multi-location structure was levelling the standard across the three factories. Tying on-site provision to a regular weekly calendar achieved that levelling without leaving it to one-off site visits.
Checklist for Building a Similar Programme
- Has the baseline been measured? (lost workdays, accident frequency, satisfaction, cost per employee)
- Does every issue identified have a corresponding component in the programme?
- Is the service brought to where the employee is, or is the employee expected to travel to the service?
- In a multi-location structure, has the standard been levelled across sites?
- Is participation actually possible within the shift pattern?
- Is the post-accident return-to-work process defined?
- Are results re-measured regularly against the same metrics?
The NextPlus Health Approach
As in this case, at NextPlus Health we design the programme by first measuring the current situation. Having a service component matched to each issue identified makes it possible to trace which intervention produced which result.
From fixed infirmary and workplace physician services to ambulance and emergency response coverage, and from psychological support and dietitian services to anonymised utilisation reports, we bring the components together according to the organisation's scale and working pattern.
Frequently Asked Questions
Would these results be achieved the same way at any organisation?
No. The figures here are specific to this organisation's baseline, sector and working pattern. What transfers is the method: measuring the current situation, building a component against each issue identified, and re-measuring against the same metrics.
Why were four components applied together rather than a single service?
Because the three issues identified fed one another. Strengthening examination infrastructure alone does not shorten post-accident duration; establishing emergency response alone does not reduce stress-driven accident risk.
Why did on-site provision make such a difference?
Access is one of the strongest factors determining utilisation in corporate health programmes. When the service comes to where the employee is, barriers such as lost working hours and travel disappear.
Why did health costs fall even though services were added?
Because the cost of a preventive service is lower than the cost of the case it prevents. Tying periodic examinations to a regular calendar and following up on results reduced the number of advanced cases, pulling total cost down.
How long before a programme's effect becomes visible?
In this case the measurement was taken at the end of 18 months. Change on the access and satisfaction side usually appears earlier, while metrics such as accident frequency and cost need several periods of data before they move meaningfully.
Conclusion
This case study shows that corporate health investment can have a measurable return; what delivers it, however, is not the breadth of the package but the one-to-one match between the real problems on the ground and the programme's components, and the tracking of results against the same metrics.
To learn more about health and wellbeing solutions tailored to your organisation, or to request a proposal:
E-mail: satis@nextplushealth.com Phone: 444 9 309
