First-year evaluation in reintegration (spoor 2): what to include

The first-year reintegration evaluation means the mandatory review around the end of the first year of sickness absence, where employer and employee record progress and define what is needed for the second year. If a return to the original job or to sustainable work within the employer is unlikely, spoor 2 (reintegration with another employer) often becomes central. The outcome determines which actions must be adjusted immediately to align with the Dutch Gatekeeper Improvement Act (Wet verbetering poortwachter). This article explains what to include, how to approach it in practice, and how to avoid common mistakes.

What does UWV assess in the first-year reintegration evaluation?

The first-year reintegration evaluation is assessed by UWV with one core question in mind: did the employer and employee demonstrably do what could reasonably be expected to enable a return to work. UWV focuses on logical decision-making, timeliness, and evidence in the file, not on polished wording. As the second year starts, it must be clear whether spoor 1 (return within the employer) still has realistic prospects or whether spoor 2 is necessary.

The first-year reintegration evaluation is not a standalone form. It should connect to the problem analysis, the reintegration action plan, earlier adjustments, and current functional capacity as assessed by the occupational physician. If capacity or opportunities change, UWV expects you to translate that into concrete actions and timelines.

In practice, UWV mainly checks whether the approach is consistent and traceable. That includes the rationale for why suitable work internally did or did not work, which interventions were used, and whether escalation to spoor 2 reintegration happened in time. Structuring the evaluation along fixed components helps.

• Outcome of spoor 1: which suitable duties were tried and what the results were.
• Current functional capacity: which limitations and possibilities apply (functional, not medical details).
• Options within the employer: why there is or is not a realistic perspective.
• Decision on spoor 2: start, continue, or intensify, with clear reasoning.
• New agreements: actions, deadlines, owners, and evaluation moments.

When should spoor 2 be addressed in the first-year evaluation?

The first-year reintegration evaluation should explicitly state whether spoor 2 applies, because the second year is often decisive for sustainable recovery and work resumption. Spoor 2 means guidance towards suitable work with another employer, while the employment contract generally remains in place. Within the Dutch gatekeeper framework, spoor 2 is not a last resort; it should be initiated once return within the employer is insufficiently realistic.

The first-year reintegration evaluation is also the moment to document why you do or do not scale up. If you start spoor 2 too late, UWV may later conclude that reintegration opportunities were missed. Many employers therefore check well before the evaluation when spoor 2 should start, to avoid decisions under time pressure.

In concrete terms, spoor 2 should be reflected in the evaluation in situations such as:

• The occupational physician expects a lasting inability to return to the original job.
• No sustainable suitable role exists internally, or only temporary work without structural prospects.
• The employee can work, but only in a different type of role or workload.
• A long-term mismatch blocks return internally, while work elsewhere is realistic.
• Internal redeployment was explored but demonstrably did not succeed or is not sustainable.

Practical approach: making the evaluation UWV-proof

The first-year reintegration evaluation becomes stronger when preparation is solid. Start by collecting facts: which steps were taken, which agreements were met, and what impact they had. Then convert those facts into a conclusion: what is the most logical route for the coming months, and why.

The first-year reintegration evaluation should also be traceable in the file. Think of meeting notes, updates to the action plan, and the rationale behind key choices. If evidence is scattered or missing, it helps to focus on building a reintegration file so you do not have to reconstruct later.

A workable method is to write as if an external reviewer must be able to follow the journey. That also exposes vague goals or actions without an owner. The steps below provide structure.

• Summarise spoor 1: what was tried, which adjustments were made, and what did or did not work.
• Document current capacity based on the occupational physician’s evaluation (no diagnosis, only functional capacity).
• Test suitability: which roles or tasks were explored internally, and why they are suitable or not.
• Decide on spoor 2: start or intensify, including goals (type of work, hours build-up, conditions).
• Plan next steps: actions per month, evaluation moments, and clear responsibilities.

More information at the UWV

The official rules and current amounts or deadlines are available at the UWV Werkwijzer Poortwachter. These can change, so always check them at the source itself for a concrete situation.

Example: what to write when spoor 2 follows after one year

The first-year reintegration evaluation becomes clearer with scenarios. Consider an employee in a physically demanding job who, after long-term health issues, has restrictions on lifting, pushing, and prolonged standing. The occupational physician indicates that a structural return to the original job is unlikely, but that seated work with variation and limited time pressure may be feasible.

The first-year reintegration evaluation can then record that spoor 1 included temporary adjusted duties, but that no sustainable suitable position exists within the organisation. Next, you justify starting or intensifying spoor 2: the goal is placement in administrative or support work, with a gradual build-up of hours, for example from 2 x 3 hours per week to 4 x 4 hours, depending on capacity and recovery. You also specify support such as labour market orientation, application coaching, and possibly a trial placement.

The key is to make progress measurable instead of describing a general direction. This prevents spoor 2 from turning into a vague process without steering. For example, you can include agreements such as:

• Within four weeks: define the target profile and search direction (tasks, sectors, conditions).
• From week five: at least two targeted approaches per week (networking and vacancies).
• Every six weeks: progress review with employee, employer, and counsellor.
• If capacity changes: adjust goals and hours build-up based on occupational advice.

To place the evaluation within the full legal route, the Gatekeeper Improvement Act step-by-step plan can serve as a checklist. And to frame the practical execution of spoor 2, the spoor 2 reintegration programme provides structure for goals, roles, and reporting.