quality-dimensions-elective-waiting-time-goals-high-level-review-jun13.doc

Quality-dimensions-elective-waiting-time-goals-high-level-review-jun13.doc

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Quality Dimensions of the Elective Waiting Time Goals – High Level Review May 2013
Image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CONTENTS The Review Panel ...................................................................... 3 1. Background .......................................................................... 4 2. Method .................................................................................. 4 3. Limitations of the review .................................................... 5 4. Findings ................................................................................ 6 4.1 Overall activity and waiting time process measures ........ 6 4.2 Clinical Quality Measures ................................................ 7 4.3 Qualitative Information from the DHB Staff Interviews .... 8 5. Conclusion ......................................................................... 11 6. Recommendations ............................................................ 12 _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 18
Image of page 2
The Review Panel Mr. Andrew Connolly, Head of Department General and Vascular Surgery, Counties Manukau DHB (Chair) Professor John Nacey Urologist, University of Otago, Wellington Mr. Ron Dunham, CEO Lakes DHB Ms Tracey Adamson, Director, Adamson Consulting Services _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 18
Image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1. Background One of the Government priorities is reducing waiting times for patients who are accepted for elective assessment and treatment. Faster access to assessment and treatment is good clinical practice. Reduced waiting times are associated with improved patient satisfaction and improved clinical outcomes for individual patients i . The key objectives ii to improving access to elective services are: 1. A maximum waiting time of six, five and four months (as at 1 July 2012, 1 July 2013 and 1 January 2015 respectively) for first specialist assessment or treatment 2. Delivery of a level of publicly funded service which is sufficient to ensure access to elective surgery before patients reach a state of unreasonable distress, ill health, and/or incapacity 3. National equity of access to elective services - so that patients have similar access to elective assessment and treatment irrespective of where they live The Office of the Auditor General’s (OAG) June 2011 report iii reviewed the elective services strategy and made five priority recommendations: Patients are more consistently selected for first specialist assessment Patients are more consistently prioritised for treatment A greater proportion of patients receive scheduled services within the prescribed time limits A greater proportion of patients are treated in priority order Progress is made in quantifying the level of unmet need for scheduled services The Minister has asked for assurance that the pursuit of the elective waiting time goals does not lead to unintended consequences for patient care. In response the Director General of Health convened an expert panel with support from the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) electives team, to determine if there were any unintended consequences for patient care and consider whether there is a need for any additional guidance or support for DHBs in the implementation of their strategies to meet elective waiting time goals. 2. Method Over a five-week period the Panel: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 18
Image of page 4
Completed a review of a range of quantitative information, at a national level, that is routinely collected by the MOH as part of monitoring progress against the elective waiting time objectives Completed a review of information prepared for use by members of the New Zealand Chapter of the Health Roundtable Ltd (HRT) and other published
Image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 6
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern