Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@arront1986 said:
I also suggested EVA or EPS, I think I suggested to choose EPS and get rid of gearing (was a constraint of 2 measures per perspective). My understanding was (correct me if I am wrong) that gearing is more concerned with long term borrowing, which there wasn’t any because Saffron raised capital for funding from a share issue.Efficiency (maximising output from the input) I chose number of patients seen per doctor, compared to the national average.
Economy (minimising cost of input) I chose average doctor’s salary, compared to the national average.
Effectiveness (the impact) I chose number of readmissions compared to national average, higher readmissions =lower effectiveness.
My evaluation of the performance against the 3 E’s was (summarised):
Increase in readmissions = increase in patients seen per doctor.
Increase in patients seen per doctor = more hours unpaid overtime worked.
More unpaid overtime worked = lower doctor job satisfaction (was 9% in comparison to 89% national average!).
Lower doctor moral + increase in patients seen per doctor = decrease in quality of service.
Decrease in quality of service = increase in readmissions.All in all, a vicious circle. Steps need to be taken to try and reverse this.
Non of the objectives were being achieved;
Patients have access to access to high quality treatments (the quality of service is low so not being acheived)
TRH delivers VLM (not being achieved due to readmissions)
Innovation in to developing medical practices (not being achieved because all time is being spent treating patients)Thanks Arron 🙂 Yeh similar comments also except I think I made error as I did number of readmissions as Efficiency to show if they are maximising output etc…hopefully I still get some marks?? I then used the satisfaction % as Effectiveness? Think I may lose marks for this part…Can you remember how many marks this part was?