My answer would be 'not well enough'. We're putting in a new HR database with the capacity to monitor this, so it will improve - but I'd be interested in following any other answers you get here.
Thanks

We recognise short term and long term sickness separately, both have a 3 stage process. Our policy does say that after each absence a RTW meeting should be held but these are not always done.

STS 1st stage is triggered at 4 periods or 12 days of absence in a rolling 12 month. A trigger meeting is held and a fixed 12 month review period is then set from the day after the meeting. The 2nd and 3rd stages are triggered by either 3 periods or 9 days of absence during the review period. The 3rd stage is a contract review which may result in dismissal.

LTS 1st stage is triggered by an absence of more than 20 days. A trigger meeting is held and a fixed 12 month review period is then set the day from after the meeting. The 2nd and 3rd stages are triggered by another/further absence of 2 months during the review period. The 3rd stage is a contract review which may result in dismissal.

A stage 3 contract review hearing is with a panel of governors. The hearing cannot take place without a recent OH report, and all paperwork from the whole process (self certs, fit notes, RTW forms trigger meeting documents etc) is presented.

The monitoring of absences is done at school level using SIMs - HR only get involved at stage 3, however, will support with OH referrals and advice at earlier stages.

There are quite a few operational issues with our process e.g. we've had an employee at stage 3 hearing for both STS and LTS within a week of each other, all the absences were linked to the same issue but under our policy we couldn't talk about STS in LTS and vice versa. Needless to say everyone involved got very confused.

Also, if we follow the policy exactly and in a timely manner, most of our employees could be dismissed before their OSP is exhausted which defeats the object.

We recently signed a TURA so I am in the process of reviewing our policies with the unions.

I am looking at the Bradford factor approach, and using the scores to trigger meetings which may or may not end up with a warning, in the hope this will engage staff and managers more rather than the tick box exercise we currently have.

On the whole our sickness absence isn't too bad - but there's always a few that know how to play the system!

We expect managers to do return to work meetings (though this is an ongoing battle and always has been across 3 schools that I have worked in over the years). We use a portal system call SAM which links to SIMs and flags up when staff hit triggers and then I organise informal meetings and then can track each case on the portal and set up review periods and reminders to arrange further meetings or OH referrals etc.