Refine search Expand filter

Audit progress

- Any -

Sector

- Any -

Year

- Any -

Report type

- Any -

Topic

- Any -

Reports

Published

Ensuring contract management capability in government - HealthShare NSW

Health
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management

This report examined whether HealthShare NSW, a part of NSW Health, has the required contract management capability to effectively manage goods and services contracts valued over $250,000. 

The report found that HealthShare has a procurement framework that should support effective contract management, but it is not applying it consistently. In particular, the audit found that HealthShare was not applying key contract management elements to over 80 per cent of the high-value contracts it manages. The audit also found that HealthShare’s contract management practices were limited by inadequate performance monitoring.

'Effective contract management is essential to ensure the contracts HealthShare enters into are delivering as expected and ensuring value for money,' said the Auditor-General. 'Without this, the value for money or savings HealthShare achieves when it negotiates these contracts is at risk of being eroded over the life of the contract.'

The report recommends that NSW Health develop a performance improvement plan to ensure HealthShare is fully compliant with procurement policies and that NSW Health meets its obligations under the Government's Accreditation Program for Goods and Services Procurement.

HealthShare is a NSW Health entity responsible for providing shared services, including procurement, to support the delivery of patient care within the NSW health system. In 2018, HealthShare procured high value goods and services contracts with an annual estimated total spend of around $1.8 billion, with most of the contracts of long duration.

NSW Government agencies are increasingly delivering services and projects through contracts with third parties. These contracts can be complex and governments face challenges in negotiating and implementing them effectively. A robust contract management framework helps ensure all parties meet their obligations, contractual relationships are well managed, agencies achieve value for money, and deliverables meet the required standards and agreed timeframes.

Contract management capability is a broad term, which can include aspects of individual staff capability (such as staff knowledge, skills and experience) as well as organisational capability (such as policies, frameworks and processes).

The NSW Procurement Board is responsible for overseeing the Government's procurement system, setting policy and ensuring compliance. It has accredited the Health Administration Corporation (HAC) to procure goods and services with no upper financial limit. Under the terms of this accreditation, the Secretary, NSW Health (as head of HAC) has delegated the procurement of high-value (over $250,000) goods and services contracts within NSW Health to only the Ministry of Health and HealthShare NSW (HealthShare).

HealthShare NSW (HealthShare) is a NSW Health entity responsible for providing shared services, including procurement, to support the delivery of patient care within the NSW health system. In 2018, HealthShare procured high-value goods and services contracts with an annual estimated total spend of around $1.8 billion, with most of the contracts of long duration.

HealthShare’s Contract Management Guide states that, without rigorous contract management, 75 per cent of projected sourcing savings can disappear within 18 months of the contract starting.

This audit examined whether HealthShare has the required capability to effectively manage high-value goods and services contracts. Contracts we examined included critical items such as food services in hospitals, patient transport services, intravenous equipment and kidney dialysis services, where risks include patient safety as well as value for money. We did not examine infrastructure, construction or information communication and technology contracts. We also did not examine HealthShare’s sourcing processes, including identifying business needs, tendering and contract award.

We assessed HealthShare against the following criteria:

  1. HealthShare's systems, policies and procedures support effective contract management and are consistent with relevant frameworks, policies and guidelines.
  2. HealthShare has capable personnel to effectively conduct the monitoring activities throughout the life of the contract.

We included the NSW Public Service Commission and NSW Treasury, through NSW Procurement, as auditees because they administer policies which directly affect contract management capability. These include:

  • NSW Procurement Board Directions and policies
  • NSW Government Procurement Policy Framework
  • Accreditation Program for Goods and Services Procurement
  • the NSW Public Sector Capability Framework.

NSW Procurement was transferred to NSW Treasury from the former Department of Finance, Services and Innovation on 1 July 2019 as part of changes to government administrative arrangements.

Conclusion
HealthShare is not applying the capability needed to effectively manage high-value (over $250,000) goods and services contracts. HealthShare's procurement framework includes elements that should support effective contract management, and it has a systematic approach to managing staff contract management capability. That said, HealthShare is not implementing key contract management elements of its own framework. As such, the value for money or savings it achieves when it negotiates contracts is at risk of being eroded over the life of these contracts.
Effective contract management is essential for HealthShare to ensure contracts it enters into are delivering the goods and services expected and achieving value for money, safety and quality. The Ministry of Health and HealthShare have invested in developing and implementing systems and tools to support effective contract management. In line with its obligations under the Agency Accreditation Program for Goods and Services Procurement (accreditation program), the Ministry of Health mandates the use of contract management plans for high-value contracts. The Ministry of Health also requires that all health entities use the PROcure contract management system for ongoing management of contracts with a value over $150,000. HealthShare is not complying with these directions for over 80 per cent of the contracts it manages.
In the absence of HealthShare following its framework, and the Ministry of Health’s directions, we looked for other evidence that HealthShare was effectively managing high-value contracts. We found that HealthShare’s contract management practices were limited by inadequate performance monitoring.
When Local Health Districts (LHDs) need to procure high-value goods and services, the Ministry of Health’s procurement policy requires that they use HealthShare to source and manage the procurement. This is to manage risk and provide oversight of procurement and contracts across the NSW health system. Despite this policy, HealthShare was only managing the sourcing stage of the procurement and transferring responsibility for contract management to the relevant LHD.

Appendix one – Response from agencies

Appendix two – Contract performance management summary

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

 

© Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

Parliamentary Reference: Report number #328 - released 31 October 2019

Published

Mental health service planning for Aboriginal people in New South Wales

Health
Management and administration
Project management
Service delivery
Workforce and capability

A report released by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford, has found that NSW Health is not forming effective partnerships with Aboriginal communities to plan, design and deliver appropriate mental health services. There is limited evidence that NSW Health is using the knowledge and expertise of Aboriginal communities to guide how mental health care is structured and delivered.

Mental illness (including substance use disorders) is the main contributor to lower life expectancy and increased mortality in the Aboriginal population of New South Wales. It contributes to a higher burden of disease and premature death at rates that are 40 per cent higher than the next highest chronic disease group, cardiovascular disease.1 

Aboriginal people have significantly higher rates of mental illness than non Aboriginal people in New South Wales. They are more likely to present at emergency departments in crisis or acute phases of mental illness than the rest of the population and are more likely to be admitted to hospital for mental health treatments.2 

In acknowledgement of the significant health disparities between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal people, NSW Health implemented the NSW Aboriginal Health Plan 2013 2023 (the Aboriginal Health Plan). The overarching message of the Aboriginal Health Plan is ‘to build respectful, trusting and effective partnerships with Aboriginal communities’ and to implement ‘integrated planning and service delivery’ with sector partners. Through the Plan, NSW Health commits to providing culturally appropriate and ‘holistic approaches to the health of Aboriginal people'.

The mental health sector is complex, involving Commonwealth, state and non government service providers. In broad terms, NSW Health has responsibility to support patients requiring higher levels of clinical support for mental illnesses, while the Commonwealth and non government organisations offer non acute care such as assessments, referrals and early intervention treatments.

The NSW Health network includes 15 Local Health Districts and the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network that provide care to patients during acute and severe phases of mental illness in hospitals, prisons and community service environments. This includes care to Aboriginal patients in the community at rates that are more than four times higher than the non Aboriginal population. Community services are usually provided as follow up after acute admissions or interactions with hospital services. The environments where NSW Health delivers mental health care include:

  • hospital emergency departments, for short term assessment and referral
  • inpatient hospital care for patients in acute and sub acute phases of mental illness
  • mental health outpatient services in the community, such as support with medications
  • custodial mental health services in adult prisons and juvenile justice centres.

The NSW Government is reforming its mental health funding model to incrementally shift the balance from hospital care to enhanced community care. In 2018–19, the NSW Government committed $400 million over four years into early intervention and specialist community mental health teams.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of NSW Health’s planning and coordination of mental health services and service pathways for Aboriginal people in New South Wales. We addressed the audit objective by answering three questions: 

  1. Is NSW Health using evidence to plan and inform the availability of mental health services for Aboriginal people in New South Wales?
  2. Is NSW Health collaborating with partners to create accessible mental health service pathways for Aboriginal people?
  3. Is NSW Health collaborating with partners to ensure the appropriateness and quality of mental health services for Aboriginal people?
Conclusion

NSW Health is not meeting the objectives of the NSW Aboriginal Health Plan, to form effective partnerships with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services and Aboriginal communities to plan, design and deliver mental health services.

There is limited evidence that existing partnerships between NSW Health and Aboriginal communities meet its own commitment to use the ‘knowledge and expertise of the Aboriginal community (to) guide the health system at every level, including (for) the identification of key issues, the development of policy solutions, the structuring and delivery of services' 3 and the development of culturally appropriate models of mental health care.

NSW Health is planning and coordinating its resources to support Aboriginal people in acute phases of mental illness in hospital environments. However, it is not effectively planning for the supply and delivery of sufficient mental health services to assist Aboriginal patients to manage mental illness in community environments. Existing planning approaches, data and systems are insufficient to guide the $400 million investment into community mental health services announced in the 2018–19 Budget.

NSW Health is not consistently forming partnerships to ensure coordinated care for patients as they move between mental health services. There is no policy to guide this process and practices are not systematised or widespread.

In this report, the term ‘Aboriginal people’ is used to describe both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Audit Office of NSW acknowledges the diversity of traditional countries and Aboriginal language groups across the state of New South Wales.

1 Australian Burden of Disease Study: Impact and causes of illness and death in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 2011 (unaudited).
2 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data 2016–17 (unaudited).
3 NSW Health, The Aboriginal Health Plan 2013-2023.

In May 2019, the Audit Office of New South Wales invited Aboriginal mental health clinicians and policy experts from government and non-government organisations to attend a one-day workshop. Workshop attendees advised on factors that improve the quality and appropriateness of mental health care for Aboriginal people in New South Wales. They described appropriate mental health care as:

  • culturally safe, allowing Aboriginal people to draw strength in their identity, culture and community
  • person centred and focussed on individual needs
  • delivered by culturally competent staff with no bias
  • holistic, trauma-informed and focussed on early intervention where possible
  • delivered in places that are appropriate including outreach to homes and communities
  • welcoming of the involvement of local Aboriginal community and connected to local knowledge and expertise including totems and kinship structures. 

The definition of 'appropriate' mental health care for Aboriginal people throughout this report is based on this advice.

Aboriginal people access emergency services at much higher rates than non-Aboriginal people

The choices that people make in relation to health service options provide some insight into the suitability and appropriateness of the service to their needs.

Aboriginal people have different mental health service use patterns than non-Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people are much more likely to be in a crisis situation before receiving mental health services, usually in an emergency department of a hospital.

Aboriginal people make up three per cent of the total New South Wales population, but they constitute 11 per cent of emergency department presentations for mental health treatments. In regional areas, Aboriginal people make up 20.5 per cent of presentations at emergency departments for mental health reasons. 

A number of factors help to explain Aboriginal mental health service usage patterns. According to government and non-government mental health organisations:

  • emergency department services are better known to Aboriginal people than other mental health services
  • community-based models of care are not appropriate for Aboriginal people
  • Aboriginal people are reluctant to access community-based mental health services to prevent crisis situations
  • community mental health services are not available for Aboriginal people after hours and during the weekend, so emergency services are the only option.

The statewide proportions of Aboriginal people presenting at emergency departments for mental health treatments has been increasing over time (Exhibit 6).

Appendix one – Response from agency

Appendix two – The NSW Aboriginal Health Plan

Appendix three – About the audit

Appendix four – Performance auditing

 

Parliamentary Reference: Report number #326 - released 29 August 2019

Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

Published

Contracting non-government organisations

Community Services
Compliance
Fraud
Management and administration
Procurement
Regulation
Service delivery

This report found the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) needs to do more to demonstrate it is effectively and efficiently contracting NGOs to deliver community services in the Permanency Support Program (a component of out-of-home-care services) and Specialist Homelessness Services. It notes that FACS is moving to an outcomes-based commissioning model and recommends this be escalated consistent with government policy.

Government agencies, such as the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS), are increasingly contracting non-government organisations (NGOs) to deliver human services in New South Wales. In doing so, agencies are responsible for ensuring these services are achieving expected outcomes. Since the introduction of the Commissioning and Contestability Policy in 2016, all NSW Government agencies are expected to include plans for customer and community outcomes and look for ways to use contestability to raise standards.

Two of the areas receiving the greatest funding from FACS are the Permanency Support Program and Specialist Homelessness Services. In the financial year 2017–18, nearly 500 organisations received $784 million for out-of-home care programs, including the Permanency Support Program. Across New South Wales, specialist homelessness providers assist more than 54,000 people each year and in the financial year 2017–18, 145 organisations received $243 million for providing short term accommodation and homelessness support, including Specialist Homelessness Services.

In the financial year 2017–18, FACS entered into 230 contracts for out-of-home care, of which 49 were for the Permanency Support Program, representing $322 million. FACS also entered into 157 contracts for the provision of Specialist Homelessness Services which totalled $170 million. We reviewed the Permanency Support Program and Specialist Homelessness Services for this audit.

This audit assessed how effectively and efficiently FACS contracts NGOs to deliver community services. The audit could not assess how NGOs used the funds they received from FACS as the Audit Office does not have a mandate that could provide direct assurance that NGOs are using government funds effectively.

Conclusion
FACS cannot demonstrate it is effectively and efficiently contracting NGOs to deliver community services because it does not always use open tenders to test the market when contracting NGOs, and does not collect adequate performance data to ensure safe and quality services are being provided. While there are some valid reasons for using restricted tenders, it means that new service providers are excluded from consideration - limiting contestability. In the service delivery areas we assessed, FACS does not measure client outcomes as it has not yet moved to outcomes-based contracts. 
FACS' procurement approach sometimes restricts the selection of NGOs for the Permanency Support Program and Specialist Homelessness Services
FACS has a procurement policy and plan which it follows when contracting NGOs for the provision of human services. This includes the option to use restricted tenders, which FACS sometimes uses rather than opening the process to the market. The use of restricted tenders is consistent with its procurement plan where there is a limited number of possible providers and the services are highly specialised. However, this approach perpetuates existing arrangements and makes it very difficult for new service providers to enter the market. The recontracting of existing providers means FACS may miss the opportunity to benchmark existing providers against the whole market. 
FACS does not effectively use client data to monitor the performance of NGOs funded under the Permanency Support Program and Specialist Homelessness Services
FACS' contract management staff monitor individual NGO performance including safety, quality of services and compliance with contract requirements. Although FACS does provide training materials on its intranet, FACS does not provide these staff with sufficient training, support or guidance to monitor NGO performance efficiently or effectively. FACS also requires NGOs to self-report their financial performance and contract compliance annually. FACS verifies the accuracy of the financial data but conducts limited validation of client data reported by NGOs to verify its accuracy. Instead, FACS relies on contract management staff to identify errors or inaccurate reporting by NGOs.
FACS' ongoing monitoring of the performance of providers under the Permanency Support Program is particularly limited due to problems with timely data collection at the program level. This reduces FACS' ability to monitor and analyse NGO performance at the program level as it does not have access to ongoing performance data for monitoring service quality.
In the Specialist Homelessness Services program, FACS and NGOs both provide the data required for the National Minimum Data Set on homelessness and provide it to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, as they are required to do. However, this data is not used for NGO performance monitoring or management.
FACS does not yet track outcomes for clients of NGOs
FACS began to develop an approach to outcomes-based contracting in 2015. Despite this, none of the contracts we reviewed are using outcomes as a measure of success. Currently, NGOs are required to demonstrate their performance is consistent with the measures stipulated in their contracts as part of an annual check of their contract compliance and financial accounts. NGOs report against activity-based measures (Key Performance Indicators) and not outcomes.
FACS advises that the transition to outcomes-based contracting will be made with the new rounds of funding which will take place in 2020–2021 for Specialist Homelessness Services and 2023 for the Permanency Support Program. Once these contracts are in place, FACS can transition NGOs to outcomes based reporting.
Incomplete data limits FACS' effectiveness in continuous improvement for the Permanency Support Program and Specialist Homelessness Services
FACS has policies and procedures in place to learn from past experiences and use this to inform future contracting decisions. However, FACS has limited client data related to the Permanency Support Program which restricts the amount of continuous improvement it can undertake. In the Specialist Homelessness Support Program data is collected to inform routine contract management discussions with service providers but FACS is not using this data for continuous improvement. 

Appendix one – Response from agency

Appendix two – About the audit

Appendix three – Performance auditing

 

Parliamentary Reference: Report number #323 - released 26 June 2019

Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.

Published

Managing demand for ambulance services 2017

Health
Information technology
Management and administration
Risk
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration
Workforce and capability

NSW Ambulance has introduced several initiatives over the past decade to better manage the number of unnecessary ambulance responses and transports to hospital emergency departments. However, there is no overall strategy to guide the development of these initiatives nor do NSW Ambulance's data systems properly monitor their impact. As a result, the Audit Office was unable to assess whether NSW Ambulance's approach to managing demand is improving the efficiency of ambulance services.

Demand for ambulance services is increasing. Demographic factors including population growth and ageing have contributed to this and ongoing growth in demand is likely. It is important that NSW Ambulance finds ways to respond to this demand more efficiently, while maintaining patient safety standards and meeting community expectations.

Most triple zero calls to NSW Ambulance do not involve medical issues that require an emergency response. NSW Ambulance has introduced a range of initiatives to change the way it manages these less urgent requests for assistance. Its major demand management initiatives include using a telephone advice line, referring some patients to services other than hospital emergency departments and using specialist paramedics to respond to less urgent cases.

The role of NSW Ambulance has changed in recent years. It is aiming to become a ‘mobile health service’ that identifies the needs of patients and provides or refers them to the most appropriate type of care. This change involves a significant expansion of the clinical decision-making role of paramedics. Considerable strategic and organisational efforts are required to make this work. The successful implementation of demand management initiatives is important to NSW Ambulance's ability to continue to meet demand for its services.

This audit assessed NSW Ambulance's major demand management initiatives that aim to reduce unnecessary demand for ambulance responses and unnecessary transport to hospital emergency departments. It aimed to assess the extent to which these initiatives have improved the efficiency of its services.

Conclusion

NSW Ambulance has introduced several initiatives that aim to manage demand for its services from less urgent cases more efficiently. There is no overall strategy for these initiatives and NSW Ambulance’s data systems do not measure their outputs or outcomes. As a result, we are unable to assess the impact of NSW Ambulance's demand management initiatives on the efficiency of ambulance services. More focus is needed to ensure these initiatives achieve the efficiency improvements necessary to help NSW Ambulance meet future increases in demand.

Increasing demand for ambulance services is a key issue for NSW Ambulance. Demand has increased at a faster rate than population growth in recent years and continued growth is expected. NSW Ambulance has introduced several initiatives that aim to manage demand for its services from people with less urgent medical issues more efficiently and align its approach with the rest of the health system in New South Wales.

These individual initiatives lack a broader strategy to guide their development. NSW Ambulance’s demand management initiatives also lack clear goals and performance targets, with insufficient organisational resources allocated to support their implementation. NSW Ambulance does not have a data system that allows it to conduct accurate routine monitoring of the activity and performance of these initiatives.

More effort is required to make demand management initiatives a core part of NSW Ambulance's work. Key relationships with other health services to support demand management initiatives have only recently been established. NSW Ambulance has not communicated proactively with the public about its demand management initiatives. To ensure paramedics are as well prepared as possible for their expanded roles, they need better professional development and up to date technology.

Demand for ambulance services in New South Wales is increasing steadily. Forecast future increases in demand due to population growth and ageing mean that NSW Ambulance must improve its efficiency to maintain its performance.

Demand for ambulance services is growing at a rate higher than population growth. The increase in demand is likely to continue as the population continues to grow and age. NSW Ambulance has made several recent changes to remove large parts of demand for its services, including moving non-emergency patient transport to a separate government agency and changing the way triple zero calls are categorised.

These changes were expected to improve emergency response time performance, but the anticipated improvements have not been achieved. If demand continues to increase as forecast, NSW Ambulance will need to find more efficient ways to manage demand to maintain its performance.

NSW Ambulance has introduced initiatives to change the way it manages demand from patients who have less urgent medical issues. These have the potential to achieve positive results, but we were unable to fully assess their impact because of weaknesses in data systems and monitoring. More needs to be done to demonstrate progress toward the efficiency improvements required.

NSW Ambulance uses a telephone referral system to manage triple zero calls from people with medical issues that do not require an ambulance. This has the potential to achieve efficiency improvements but there are weaknesses in NSW Ambulance's use and monitoring of this system. Paramedics are now able to make decisions about whether patients need transport to a hospital emergency department. NSW Ambulance does not routinely measure or monitor the decisions paramedics make, so it does not know whether these decisions are improving efficiency. Extended Care Paramedics who have additional skills in diagnosing and treating patients with less urgent medical issues were introduced in 2007. NSW Ambulance analysis indicates that these paramedics have the potential to improve efficiency, but have not been used as effectively as possible.

Our 2013 audit of NSW Ambulance found that accurate monitoring of activity and performance was not being conducted. More than four years later, this remains the case. 

NSW Ambulance has recognised the need to change the way it manages demand and has developed initiatives that have the potential to improve efficiency. However, there are significant weaknesses in the strategy for and implementation of its demand management initiatives.

NSW Ambulance has identified the goal of moving from an emergency transport provider to a mobile health service and developed several initiatives to support this. Its demand management initiatives have the potential to contribute to the broader policy directions for the health system in New South Wales. However, there is no clear overall strategy guiding these initiatives and their implementation has been poor.

NSW Ambulance's reasons for changing its approach to demand management have not been communicated proactively to the community. Demand management initiatives that have been operating for over a decade still do not have clear performance measures or targets. Project management of new initiatives has been inadequate, with insufficient organisational resources to oversee them and inadequate engagement with other healthcare providers.

NSW Ambulance uses an in-house Vocational Education and Training course to recruit some paramedics, as well as recruiting paramedics who have completed a university degree. No other Australian ambulance services continue to provide their own Vocational Education and Training qualifications. Paramedics will need more support in several key areas to be able to fulfil their expanded roles in providing a mobile health service. Performance and development systems for paramedics are not used effectively. Up to date technology would help paramedics make better decisions and improve NSW Ambulance's ability to monitor demand management activity.

There are gaps in NSW Ambulance's oversight of the risks of some of the initiatives it has introduced, particularly its lack of information on the outcomes for patients who are not transported to hospital. Weaknesses in the way NSW Ambulance uses its data limit its ability to properly assess the risks of the demand management initiatives it has introduced.

Appendix one - Response from agency

Appendix two - About the audit

Appendix three - Performance auditing

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #295 - released 13 December 2017

Published

Planning and evaluating palliative care services in NSW

Health
Management and administration
Service delivery
Workforce and capability

NSW Health’s approach to planning and evaluating palliative care is not effectively coordinated. There is no overall policy framework for palliative and end-of-life care, nor is there comprehensive monitoring and reporting on services and outcomes.

Palliative care is an essential component of modern health care services and an increasingly important part of the wider health and social care systems. Palliative care is healthcare and support for people with a life-limiting illness, their families and carers. It is provided by, or informed by, professionals who specialise in palliative care. ‘End of life’ care is provided to people approaching the end of life by health professionals, who may work in the health, community or aged care systems. Not everyone receiving end of life care needs palliative care.

NSW Health has a policy and planning role in palliative and end-of-life care, and it coordinates a wide range of service providers. Local Health Districts (LHDs) provide care services in settings such as homes, hospitals and clinics to patients with varying needs. There are several care providers that can be involved.

Due to this shared nature of palliative care — where many people, services and settings are involved in delivering care to the patient — availability and communication of information is critical. For service planning, data and evidence must be drawn from various sources in a timely and efficient way.

This audit assessed whether NSW Health is effectively planning and evaluating palliative care services, in the context of rising demand, increasingly complex needs, and the diversity of service providers.

Conclusion 

NSW Health’s approach to planning and evaluating palliative care is not effectively coordinated. There is no overall policy framework for palliative and end-of-life care, nor is there comprehensive monitoring and reporting on services and outcomes.  

NSW Health has a limited understanding of the quantity and quality of palliative care services across the state, which reduces its ability to plan for future demand and the workforce needed to deliver it. At the district level, planning is sometimes ad hoc and accountability for performance is unclear.

The capacity of LHDs to use accurate and complete data to plan and deliver services is hindered by multiple disjointed information systems and manual data collections. Further, a data collection on patient outcomes, for benchmarking and quality improvement, is not used universally. This limits the ability of districts to plan, benchmark and improve services based on outcomes data.

NSW Health's engagement with stakeholders is not systematic. The lack of an overall stakeholder engagement strategy puts at risk the sustainability and value of stakeholder input in planning and limits transparency.

Over the last two years, NSW Health has taken steps to improve its planning and support for districts. The Agency for Clinical Innovation has produced an online resource which will assist LHDs in constructing their own, localised models of care. eHealth, which coordinates information communication technology for the state’s healthcare, aims to invest in integrating and improving information systems. These initiatives should help to address many of the issues now inhibiting integrated service delivery, reporting on activity and outcomes, and planning for the future.

1. By July 2018, NSW Health should develop an integrated palliative and end-of-life care policy framework that:

  • clearly articulates the interface between palliative and end of life care and outlines the priorities for the respective areas
  • defines policy goals and objectives, and a performance and evaluation framework for palliative care service planning and delivery
  • informs a related workforce plan which supports the policy framework and is linked to the Health Professional Workforce Plan 2012–2022
  • reviews the funding allocation model to ensure future enhancement funds are distributed equitably and transparently based on the need and population of districts.

By December 2018, NSW Health should:

2. assess how the functionality provided in data collection programs such as the Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration program can be provided across all palliative care services in NSW

3. complete its statewide review of systems and reporting for end of life management including specialist palliative care, and develop a business case to implement a more integrated set of solutions to:

  • support providers delivering end of life and palliative care
  • help monitor service quality and quantity
  • provide comprehensive data for service planning

4. improve stakeholder engagement by:

  • developing a statewide stakeholder engagement strategy that brings together current activity and good practice, and is transparent and publicly available
  • defining accountability for overseeing and implementing the strategy at state and district levels.

1. Performance monitoring is inadequate

NSW Government policy on palliative care is outlined in the NSW Government Plan to Increase Access to Palliative Care 2012–2016 (the Plan). Under the Plan, the overarching policy is ‘to ensure that everyone has access to quality palliative care regardless of their economic or social circumstances, their geographical location or their medical condition.’ Some initiatives under the Plan are still being implemented.

NSW Health only has measures in place to assess some processes and activities for individual initiatives under the Plan. There is no tracking of outcomes relating to the policy goals set out in the Plan, such as increased choice to die at home or the location of the patient’s choice, and improved access to specialist palliative care services. NSW Health has not conducted an overall assessment of the Plan’s outcomes to guide future priorities.

Further, there is no overall performance and reporting framework for palliative and end of life care, meaning there is no monitoring of performance of palliative care services for NSW as a whole. This lack of evaluation and performance measurement impacts on NSW Health's ability to monitor progress and achievements, address gaps in service, and plan for future service enhancement. 

2. Statewide planning and evaluation lacks coordination

Currently, palliative care services are complex to plan and evaluate. Many policies, strategies, guidelines, directives and data collections currently inform services. Even definitions of services vary. The split of policy functions for palliative care and end-of-life care between different branches within NSW Health adds further complexity. These arrangements create the risk of confusion, gaps in advice and support for LHDs.

Consistency is needed in the use of terminology and planning to achieve an integrated approach at all levels, including:

  • standard definitions of palliative care and end-of-life care
  • planning within a single structured policy framework to help clarify what services are to be delivered, who is accountable for delivering them and how to measure their outcomes.

Workforce planning is also affected. While NSW Health has identified significant gaps in the specialist palliative care workforce (especially in regional and remote areas) and it previously made workforce capacity one of its priorities, limited work has been undertaken in producing a statewide strategy to reduce these gaps.

3. District planning is not systematic and some external providers are poorly managed

An integrated approach would inform district-level service planning for palliative care. Planning in the districts we visited was sometimes ad hoc and accountability for performance unclear. Districts would benefit from:

  • better integrating data collection systems with planning
  • clearer guidelines, easy-to-use tools, monitoring and accountability systems.

The recently developed guide – A Blueprint for Improvement, from the Agency for Clinical Innovation – should help districts plan more effectively and consistently as it rolls out more widely in 2017. This takes an integrated approach to palliative and end-of-life care. Only one district we visited has finalised a comprehensive plan using the Blueprint.

Issues with district planning extend to external agreements with service providers, as these are sometimes poorly managed and do not support improved patient outcomes. Examples we reviewed showed a significant reporting burden with process-focused reporting. We also found little evidence of monitoring or action as a result of these reports.

4. Diverse information systems mean data collection and use are inconsistent

NSW Health gathers a broad range of data from many collection points and systems to inform palliative care services at hospital, ward or unit level, and community teams. However, the current data is limited because: 

  • activity is under-reported, particularly in community-based services
  • collection is not universal across districts and services.

Districts also struggle with evidence-based planning and service delivery because multiple information systems mean data may be incomplete or inaccurate. Too often, clinicians and service managers rely on manual collection and paper-based systems. 

eHealth, which coordinates information communication technology (ICT) for the state’s healthcare, is planning a statewide approach to capture information and report on all palliative care activity. The current plans of eHealth to review and improve systems should make data more complete, robust and accessible for quality improvement and planning.

5. An overarching stakeholder strategy would strengthen engagement

Just as data is central to effective planning and evaluation, so too is stakeholder engagement. However, there is currently no explicit stakeholder strategy, which means consultation is inconsistent across the state and not systematic at a district level.

While NSW Health uses a range of platforms to consult, the purpose and value is often not clear to stakeholders. Individual districts have some good practices, but there are limited mechanisms to identify and share these with other areas. A state-wide strategy would improve the quality and consistency of engagement, which will in turn inform service planning and delivery.

A stakeholder engagement strategy would integrate current initiatives, such as the two major networks that consult with health planning staff and clinicians. But it will also need to extend the feedback gathered from families, carers and volunteers, and from the peak bodies that represent them. 

Appendix one - Response from the Agency

Appendix two -  National and NSW data on palliative care activity and outcomes

Appendix three -  About the audit

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #291 - released 17 August 2017 

Published

Sydney Road Maintenance Contracts

Transport
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management

In November 2013, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) outsourced the maintenance of State roads in the Sydney region south and west zones using an innovative contracting approach called the Stewardship Maintenance Contract (SMC). The SMC links risk to reward, and uses a performance framework where outcomes should drive improved performance over time.

RMS’ SMC contract management includes most elements of good practice, including governance and dispute resolution mechanisms. However, key elements are missing which reduces its effectiveness.

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is responsible for the Sydney region State roads network This includes over 2,800 kilometres of roads and associated road corridor infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels and drainage structures. RMS divides the network into three geographical areas: south, west and north zones.

In 1995, RMS first outsourced road corridor infrastructure maintenance for the north zone through a Performance Specified Maintenance Contract (PSMC). The current 10-year PSMC for the north zone will expire in October 2018. Prior to November 2013, RMS maintained roads in the south and west zones through its Road and Fleet Services unit. 

In November 2013, RMS outsourced road maintenance services for the south and west zones using Stewardship Maintenance Contracts (SMC). The contracts run for seven years with an option for a further three years at RMS’ discretion. RMS estimated that the annual cost of these contracts was around $240 million in total. In March 2018, the contract prices are due to be reset by negotiation to reflect the contractors’ experience with, and better information about, the road networks and routine maintenance requirements. 

The SMC model adopted stewardship principles to improve value for money. RMS defined stewardship principles as a broad set of values, attitudes and behaviours, required of the contractor to effectively manage the assets on behalf of RMS. The SMC also includes commercial principles, such as linking risk to reward, and a performance framework where outcomes drive performance.

This audit assessed whether RMS had effectively managed the outsourcing of road maintenance in the Sydney region south and west zones. In making this assessment, we answered the following questions:

  1. Did RMS justify the decision to adopt the SMC model?
  2. Do SMCs include key performance indicators (KPIs) and incentives which promote efficiency and effectiveness? 
  3. Does RMS collect high quality information on contractor performance and take action to correct performance deficiencies?
  4. Are the expected benefits being achieved?

Conclusion

RMS developed an innovative contracting approach with the SMC. RMS has realised some benefits in the first year, including savings, from outsourcing road maintenance in the Sydney region south and west zones using the SMC. However, RMS’ management of the SMC has key elements missing which reduces its effectiveness.

The SMC includes performance measures and incentives to drive efficiency and effectiveness improvements over time.  

RMS has established a contract management framework which includes most elements of good practice, including governance and dispute resolution mechanisms. However, it does not have procedures to guide its contract managers in managing specific provisions of the SMC. Consequently, RMS has not exercised several significant SMC requirements, such as having the contractor account for an efficiency dividend in its pricing at the start of each three-year works period. It also has not done enough to assure itself that the contractor provided performance and financial data are correct. This is important because the data is used to measure performance and calculate contractor payments.  

RMS assessed that it had achieved around 80 per cent of the expected cost benefit in the initial year of the SMC. However, it has not tracked its achievement of benefits since then.

The Stewardship Maintenance Contract

RMS justified adopting the SMC model and included KPIs to drive efficiency and effectiveness

The SMC model includes features that RMS had not previously used for road maintenance contracts. These included adopting stewardship principles and transferring price risk to the contractor over time as the contractor becomes familiar with the assets being maintained.

The SMC model meets RMS’ requirements for flexibility in pricing models, the need for collaboration in asset maintenance planning, promoting innovation and effective performance management.

RMS used many good practices to develop the SMC model, including:

  • preparing a robust business case comparing the SMC model to RMS maintaining the road network itself, as well as assessing whether two other contracting models
    (traditional and alliance) would meet its requirements
  • assessing experiences with similar arrangements in other jurisdictions and identifying elements that worked to get the best outcomes
  • developing a robust performance framework, which included a mix of efficiency and effectiveness KPIs that reflected NSW Government policy and RMS priorities
  • incorporating risk and reward incentives delivered through cost sharing arrangements which change as the contract matures
  • using a contract duration that supports RMS priorities and provides an incentive for better quality outcomes.

RMS uses data provided by the contractor to measure performance and calculate payments to the contractor. The SMC includes a specific sanction if RMS finds that the contractor provided incorrect performance data, but no specific sanction if the contractor provides incorrect financial data. If RMS finds that the contactor provided incorrect performance or financial data, RMS can only recover over-payments which may have been made using the incorrect data.  

To provide a stronger incentive for the contractor to ensure data it provides is accurate, RMS should consider whether to incorporate stronger sanctions when negotiating the commercial reset due in mid-2018 for south and west zones. RMS should also consider this for the new contract for the north zone when the current PSMC contract expires in October 2018.

RMS' contract management approach and benefits realization

RMS can improve the effectiveness of its oversight and management of the SMC

RMS does not have SMC specific contract procedures to guide its contract managers. Consequently, RMS has not exercised several significant SMC requirements, such as having the contractors account for an efficiency dividend in their pricing at the start of each three-year works period. Effective contract management should be supported by contract specific procedures, with explanations of, and allocation of responsibility for, the various interventions that RMS may be required to exercise in the SMC.

Performance and financial reporting under the SMC is based on a mix of RMS and contractor provided data. While there are a range of audits of contractor provided performance and financial data that RMS can conduct each year under the SMC, it does not have a schedule of audits it will conduct and when.  
During the first year of the SMC, RMS commissioned some limited audits of financial data. In the first three years of the SMC, RMS did not conduct any audits of performance data. Had there been SMC specific procedures in place, this would have reduced the risk of RMS not implementing a systematic audit program to give it reasonable assurance on the quality of the data that the contractor has provided. This is important because the data is used to measure performance and calculate contractor payments.

RMS has been aware of data quality issues since 2015. While RMS advised that it commenced addressing some data quality issues in response to a series of reviews conducted in 2015, a recent internal audit report indicates that RMS has not resolved the data quality issues.  

RMS achieved benefits in the first year, but has not tracked benefits since

As part of the business case, RMS agreed to implement a benefits realisation strategy, including a benefits tracking tool. RMS commenced tracking benefits, but did not establish a comparative baseline pre-SMC on non-financial benefits, and has not tracked benefits past year one.

In 2015, a benchmarking study commissioned by RMS found that it had achieved 80 per cent of the expected recurrent cost savings and other benefits, such as improved workplace safety, in the first full year of the SMC. However, there was no clear baseline to measure
non-financial performance. The study was qualified due to gaps in available data. The study also did not reconcile the actual one-off transition costs to the business case estimate.

During the course of the audit, RMS advised that it intends to repeat this type of study to determine whether it has achieved all expected benefits (and their value), and that it would use the results to inform its negotiation with the SMC contractors as part of the commercial reset due in mid-2018.

Roads and Maritime Services is responsible for the State Roads network in the Sydney region

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is responsible for the Sydney region State roads network. This includes over 2,800 kilometres of roads and associated road corridor infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels and drainage structures. The network is divided into three geographical areas: south, west and north zones. Prior to November 2013, RMS maintained roads in the Sydney region south and west zones through its Road and Fleet Services unit.  

In 1995, RMS first outsourced road corridor infrastructure maintenance for the north zone through a Performance Specified Maintenance Contract (PSMC). The current 10-year PSMC for the north zone will expire in October 2018. This contract is worth around $35 million per annum.  

NSW Government priorities and road maintenance

Efficient and effective road maintenance contributes to the following NSW Government priorities:

  • improving road travel reliability
  • ensuring on-time running of public transport
  • reducing road fatalities
  • improving government services
  • keeping our environment clean.

The NSW Commission of Audit recommended outsourcing the maintenance of State roads

The NSW Commission of Audit in its Final Report on Government Expenditure (May 2012) recommended contestability as an appropriate strategy to consider for improving road maintenance service delivery for State roads.  

The Commission benchmarked RMS’ road surface quality and cost per lane kilometre against those of Western Australia, Victoria, and Queensland. This showed that New South Wales lagged the other states on both these measures.  

Exhibit 1: Interjurisdictional comparison of road maintenance outcomes 2009–10
  WA VIC QLD NSW
Roads managed (lane kms) 52,659 50,510 71,353 80,348
Estimated spend ($/lane km) 5,000 4,500 6,000 7,000
Road quality measure (%) 99 99 94 91
Source: NSW Commission of Audit Final Report May 2012.

The Commission noted that RMS had conducted two independent reviews to examine the potential for extending road maintenance contestability. The Commission found that there was inadequate and inconclusive benchmarking to establish the efficiency of RMS’ Road and Fleet Services unit when compared to outsourcing. It recommended that RMS bring forward a proposal to conduct a competitive tender for the road maintenance of the Sydney region south zone road network to inform the feasibility of a progressive rollout of road maintenance contestability across other areas of the State. In August 2012, the NSW Government adopted the Commission’s recommendation.

The NSW Government introduced road maintenance contestability through Stewardship Maintenance Contracts

In April 2013, the NSW Government announced that it would introduce road maintenance contestability across the Sydney region, using a Stewardship Maintenance Contract (SMC) model to improve value for money. In doing so, it excluded RMS’ Road and Fleet Services unit from tendering.  

The SMC model is based on the following key commercial and performance principles set by RMS:

  • performance driven by outcomes
  • flexible and adaptable
  • transparent and measurable
  • linking risk to reward
  • continuous improvement
  • criteria for selection of, and transition to, different payment models.

The following key stewardship principles underpin the SMC’s broad set of values, attitudes and behaviours, which are required of the contractor to effectively manage the assets on behalf of RMS:

  • putting RMS’ customers (road users and the general public) first and being responsive to them
  • being responsible and accountable for the outcomes resulting from the management of the assets
  • managing the assets diligently, efficiently and effectively with limited direction from RMS
  • working collaboratively with RMS to deliver services that are tailored to meet RMS’ evolving needs
  • acting with integrity and transparency in performing the services
  • performing the services in the best interests of RMS and asset users.

Other key features of the SMC include:

  • service requirements which describe the scope of the services, and the standards the contractor must meet
  • a commercial framework which defines how payments are structured, how performance assessment will impact on payments and outlines the key commercial principles. SMCs primarily divide payments into two main mechanisms, these being the priced component (or fixed price) and the target cost calculated as follows:
    • fixed price – the contractor is paid a pre-agreed amount for specific services being provided, regardless of the actual costs incurred
    • target cost – RMS and the contractor agree on a target cost for a project, and any cost overruns or underruns are shared between them
  • a performance framework which provides mechanisms for assessing contractor performance. This includes a comprehensive listing of the key result areas (KRAs) and key performance indicators (KPIs) against which RMS measures the contractor’s performance. The framework also outlines the scoring methodology that RMS uses to determine whether the contractor’s bid margin (profit and overheads) is reduced due to less than satisfactory performance or whether a bonus is paid if a threshold performance score is exceeded.

Road maintenance under SMCs for Sydney region south and west zones commenced in November 2013

In November 2013, RMS awarded SMCs to the Leighton Boral Amey consortium, now named Ventia Boral Amey (VBA), for the south zone and the DownerMouchel (DM) consortium for the west zone. The contracts run for seven years with an option for a further three years at RMS’ discretion. In April 2014, full services commenced following a four-month transition period. RMS estimated that the annual cost of these contracts was around $240 million in total. In March 2018, the contract prices are due to be reset by negotiation to reflect the contractors’ experience with, and better information about, the road networks and routine maintenance requirements. 

  1. Roads and Maritime Services should consider whether to incorporate stronger sanctions in the Stewardship Maintenance Contract if the contractor provides incorrect performance or financial data to RMS, when:
     
    1. negotiating the commercial reset for the next works period with the Sydney region south and west zone contractors due in July 2018.
    2. finalising a new SMC contract for the Sydney region north zone, due to commence in October 2018.

Roads and Maritime Services should, by September 2017:

2.  Review its contract management framework for SMCs to ensure that all authorities and accountabilities of
     contract managers are clearly defined, including:

a) accountability and procedures for exercising all operational clauses in the SMC where RMS may opt to, or be required to intervene, or make a decision

b) authority to approve or initiate the interventions RMS is required to, or may, exercise under the SMC

c) the audits that RMS will conduct to systematically validate the performance and financial data that the SMC contractors provide

d) the accountabilities of RMS contract managers to systematically review audits and quality reviews that the SMC contractors must conduct to demonstrate compliance with their service plans

e) the accountabilities of RMS contract managers to check that the monthly and annual reports provided by SMC contractors do not contain errors, omissions or inaccuracies.

3.  Improve its management of benefits realisation by:

a) initiating a further benefits realisation review and record the benefits delivered against those
    estimated following the tender process, including the one-off transition costs

b) identify any benefits, including savings, not yet attained and develop strategies to address any short-falls

c) establish a tool to track the ongoing realisation of benefits.

Appendix One - Response from Roads and Maritime Services

Appendix Two - Better practice contract management framework

Appendix Three - About the audit

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #288 - released 15 June 2017

Published

NorthConnex

Premier and Cabinet
Treasury
Transport
Compliance
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement

The processes used to assess NorthConnex adequately considered value for money for taxpayers.This report also found that the impact of tolling concessions on road users and the motorway network was consistent with policy objectives described in the 2012 NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan.

NorthConnex is a nine-kilometre tolled motorway tunnel between the M1 Pacific motorway at Wahroonga and the M2 Hills motorway at West Pennant Hills. The total cost for the project is $3.1 billion. NorthConnex will be funded through toll charges, and contributions from the NSW and Australian Governments of up to $405 million each. In January 2015, the NSW Roads Minister signed the final contracts for NorthConnex.

By December 2017, the Department of Premier and Cabinet should:

1. publish an updated ‘Unsolicited Proposals – Guide for Submission and Assessment’ which clarifies obligations with requirements in other NSW Government policies such as the NSW PPP guideline and Infrastructure Investor Assurance Framework. The update should require:

a) a business case to be prepared, and a business case gateway review completed, as part of the assessment of the detailed proposal (currently stage 2)

b) probity reports must be completed and considered before the decision to proceed to the next stage.
 

The Department of Premier and Cabinet and NSW Treasury should immediately:

2. improve record keeping to ensure compliance with the State Records Act 1998 and the NSW Government Standard on Records Management.

 

Appendix One - Response from Agency

Appendix Two - Governance Arrangements for NorthConnex

Appendix Three - About the Audit

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #287 - released 8 June 2017

Published

Medical equipment management in NSW public hospitals

Health
Compliance
Internal controls and governance

In an audit of medical equipment in NSW hospitals, the NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford found that the management of PET-CT scanners could be enhanced by better performance reporting and replacement planning, and that biomedical equipment needed more timely testing and maintenance.

The NSW Auditor-General examined the management of:

  • a high-value piece of equipment primarily used for diagnosing cancer - Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography (PET-CT) scanners
  • a small sample of lower value but critical medical equipment known as biomedical equipment.

Medical equipment needs to be properly managed over its lifecycle, from planning to acquisition, operation and disposal, to ensure patient safety and quality of care.

This audit assessed how well NSW hospitals managed medical equipment to meet the needs of patients. We examined the management of:

  1. Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography (PET-CT) scanners, a high-value piece of equipment commonly used for diagnosing cancer
  2. a small sample of lower value but critical medical equipment known as biomedical equipment.  

We examined five hospitals for this audit: Lismore Base Hospital (in the Northern NSW Local Health District (LHD)), Liverpool Hospital (South Western Sydney LHD), Nepean Hospital (Nepean Blue Mountains LHD), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (Sydney LHD) and Westmead Hospital (Western Sydney LHD).

Conclusion 

Management of PET-CT scanners

PET-CT scanners were well managed, though could be enhanced by better performance reporting and replacement planning.

The PET-CT scanners we reviewed were well utilised and there was prompt reporting of scan results by specialists to referring doctors.  

In 2015–16, 10 per cent of PET-CT scans were inpatient services (funded mostly by NSW Health), 60 per cent were Medicare-funded outpatient services, and the remaining 30 per cent were privately referred outpatient services not funded by Medicare. Service costs for privately referred scans not funded by Medicare were met by a range of sources, including hospitals’ general purpose funds and patient out-of-pocket charges. Across the five hospitals, out-of-pocket charges varied and ranged from $250 to $950 per scan.  

While responsibility for providing PET-CT services has been delegated to Local Health Districts, NSW Health could assume an enabling role in collating performance reporting to inform service planning and benchmarking.

There was little equipment replacement planning for PET-CT scanners, making it unclear when and how equipment might be replaced, including what model of funding might apply.

Management of biomedical equipment

Improvement is needed in the timeliness of testing and maintenance for biomedical equipment. Outdated and inefficient information systems used for day-to-day management of biomedical equipment need to be improved or replaced.

Only about half of the items of equipment included in our sample had testing and maintenance completed according to scheduled intervals or within 30 days of the scheduled date. These intervals were set under the Australian/New Zealand Standard 3551 ‘Management programs for medical equipment’, which requires regular testing and maintenance of biomedical equipment to ensure it is safe and suitable for clinical use.

The information systems used to record service histories of biomedical equipment were inefficient and inadequate for effective planning, monitoring and reporting of testing and maintenance. The implementation of a state-wide asset management system, Asset and Facilities Management Online (AFM Online), which will replace existing systems, has experienced delays. In addition, hospitals did not maintain adequate oversight of testing and maintenance that was outsourced to external contractors.

Management of PET-CT scanners

PET-CT scanners were well utilised and reports were promptly sent to referring doctors

PET-CT scanners in Liverpool, Westmead and Royal Prince Alfred Hospitals were utilised to over 85 per cent of capacity. Utilisation at Nepean Hospital (around 60 per cent) was lower due to the age of the equipment and insufficient ‘uptake rooms’ for patients to receive radioactive injections. Lismore Base Hospital had a lower population to service and scheduled its PET-CT patients into three days a week to optimise efficiency.

PET-CT services were generally available to patients in a timely way and reports were promptly sent back to referring doctors. While clinicians we interviewed advised that there was generally no delay in patients accessing PET-CT scanners, only one hospital collected patient waiting time data to confirm this view.

Funding of PET-CT scans is complex

The funding of health services in NSW public hospitals involves a complex arrangement between the Australian and NSW Governments. In 2015–16, 10 per cent of PET-CT scans were inpatient services (funded mostly by NSW Health), 60 per cent were Medicare-funded outpatient services, and the remaining 30 per cent were privately referred outpatient services not funded by Medicare. Service costs for privately referred scans not funded by Medicare were met by a range of sources, including hospitals’ general purpose funds and patient out-of-pocket charges. Across the five hospitals, out-of-pocket charges varied and ranged from $250 to $950 per scan.

Better performance reporting could enable better planning of PET-CT scanners

NSW Health has delegated the planning functions for many pieces of high-value medical equipment, including PET-CT scanners, to Local Health Districts. This is intended to ensure local decision-making that is responsive to local community needs.

While local planning and service delivery is delegated to each Local Health District, under the Health Administration Act 1982, the Secretary of NSW Health is responsible for planning the provision of comprehensive, balanced and co-ordinated health services throughout New South Wales.

NSW Health could enable better service delivery and planning by collating and sharing performance information about PET-CT services across Local Health Districts.  

Equipment replacement planning was unclear 

Planning for future replacement of PET-CT scanners at the hospitals we examined was unclear, including when equipment would be replaced and what funding model might be applied. A better practice would be to have a clear equipment replacement plan for existing scanners that would ensure clarity about when equipment will be replaced, whether the replacement scanner should be leased, purchased or shared, and possible funding sources.

Management of biomedical equipment 

Equipment testing and maintenance did not always comply with intervals set under the Australian/New Zealand Standard All hospitals we examined adopted the Australian/New Zealand Standard 

All hospitals we examined adopted the Australian/New Zealand Standard 3551 ‘Management programs for medical equipment’ (the Standard) for managing medical equipment, the purpose of which is to ensure that equipment is safe and suitable for use. The Standard requires the regular testing and maintenance of biomedical equipment at predetermined intervals.  

Our review of three years of service records for 50 items of biomedical equipment found that:

  • nineteen (38 per cent) items of equipment were tested and maintained within the intervals determined by hospitals under the Standard
  • five (ten per cent) had at least one instance where they were tested and maintained less than 30 days later than when the work was due
  • thirteen (26 per cent) had at least one instance where they were tested and maintained one to six months later than when the work was due
  • six (12 per cent) had at least one instance where they were tested and maintained more than six months later than when the work was due
  • seven (14 per cent) were lost, removed from clinical use or unable to be unidentified.

The Standard envisages that there may be circumstances when testing and maintenance does not occur according to schedule, and sets out a procedure that should be followed when testing and maintenance is overdue. This procedure was not followed in any of the hospitals we reviewed.  

Two out of five audited hospitals used risk rating to oversee equipment maintenance

Only two out of five hospitals we examined used risk rating, under which equipment is classified according to clinical risk, to prioritise equipment maintenance and to determine appropriate frequencies for equipment testing and maintenance.  

Some hospitals had inadequate oversight of work performed by external contractors

There was variable oversight of outsourced service contracts for high-risk biomedical equipment. In some cases, hospitals did not maintain complete histories of testing and maintenance work performed by contractors. Some contractors had incorrectly recorded items they had tested, or had refused to provide details of testing and maintenance performed.

New peer review process may improve assurance over testing and maintenance

NSW Health has started a peer review process in a small number of hospitals. This process covers a range of performance indicators relating to equipment management practices, including the auditing of test and maintenance records for two pieces of equipment per hospital. There is opportunity to build upon this effort by including all hospitals in the peer review process, and by expanding the sample of equipment subject to records audit.  

Hospitals’ record keeping of testing and maintenance service histories was inefficient and inadequate

The Standard requires that adequate and traceable equipment maintenance histories be kept. We found that hospitals’ record keeping of equipment service histories was inefficient and inadequate. None of the hospitals used an information system that provided the full three-levels of capability outlined below:

  • storing equipment information electronically, allowing easy retrieval
  • managing service requests and holding full service histories and test results
  • automatically generating reports to allow risk based prioritisation of equipment maintenance, repairs and replacements.

There is an urgent need to implement the state-wide asset management system for biomedical equipment

Hospitals advised that the current outdated systems will be replaced by a state-wide asset management system, Asset and Facilities Management Online, though this implementation has experienced delays.

There was good governance over equipment acquisition, replacement and disposal

All hospitals had formal processes for acquiring and replacing biomedical equipment, including management committees to oversee equipment needs. Equipment disposal processes were aligned with relevant standards and policies.

All hospitals purchased the majority of their biomedical equipment through HealthShare, the central procurement agency of NSW Health. This contributed to cost savings across the health system.

Management of medical equipment in the NSW public health system

In New South Wales, responsibility for the management of public hospitals is devolved from the NSW Ministry of Health to 15 Local Health Districts and two Speciality Health Networks.The Secretary of NSW Health retains a function under the Health Administration Act 1982 to plan the provision of comprehensive, balanced and co-ordinated health services throughout the State.

Every year, the Ministry of Health and Local Health Districts sign a service agreement that sets out the expected performance from Local Health Districts and the funding they will receive to provide their services. Under these arrangements, responsibility for managing medical equipment is delegated to Local Health Districts.  

Medical equipment is used to diagnose, treat and manage patients. It includes items as diverse as patient beds, dialysis machines, operating tables and heart monitors. The good management of medical equipment contributes to ensuring patient care and safety, as well as keeping the cost burden on the public health system low.

The New South Wales public health system uses a wide range of medical equipment. Most of this equipment is used in hospital settings, however, some is also used in community health centres and patients’ homes. The cost of individual items ranges from less than $100 to several million dollars. In total, about $1.2 billion, or six per cent of NSW Health’s total asset value, was for medical equipment.

The approach used to manage medical equipment varies between hospitals, and between expensive and less-expensive items. Different service models are also used, for example, some items may be purchased in one hospital, but leased in another.  

About the audit

This audit assessed how well NSW public hospitals managed medical equipment to meet the needs of patients. We looked at the lifecycle of biomedical equipment, which comprises planning, acquisition, operation and maintenance, and then replacement and disposal. The audit questions in relation to each stage of the lifecycle are summarised in Exhibit 1. 

By June 2018 

  1. NSW Health should review all services provided by Local Health Districts which use high-value medical equipment (with establishment cost that exceeds $3 million), to determine whether state-level coordination, service benchmarking and equipment usage reporting is warranted.

  2. NSW public hospitals offering PET-CT services should collect and use patient waiting time data (the difference between the date of referral and the actual date of the scan) as part of improving service efficiency and meeting patient needs.

  3. Local Health Districts should ensure that there is a formal equipment replacement plan at the time of procuring high-value equipment, for both new and existing services. The plan should include an estimated time of replacement. The Ministry of Health should regularly review capital funding implications from these planned equipment replacements.

By June 2019

4. NSW public hospitals should review internal business rules and processes for biomedical equipment management to ensure that:  

a) equipment is accessible by service technicians for testing and maintenance work, including establishing internal processes to assist service technicians in gaining access to equipment that has missed previous testing and maintenance attempts in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard 3551

b) adequate maintenance records are kept, including descriptions of testing and maintenance work carried out in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard 3551

c) there is regular reporting to Local Health District Chief Executives on the compliance of equipment testing and maintenance, including equipment that is tested or maintained later than scheduled intervals

d) there is specified statement of risk tolerance for late equipment testing and maintenance and mechanisms to appropriately prioritise equipment testing and maintenance.

5. Ministry of Health should encourage that all NSW public hospitals have their biomedical equipment management practices reviewed under the new peer review process, and that the review sample from each hospital be increased to more than two pieces of equipment per hospital.

6. Ministry of Health should complete the implementation of AFM Online for biomedical equipment management.

Appendix One - Response from NSW Health

Appendix Two - About the Audit

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #286 - released 25 May 2017

Published

Building the readiness of the non-government sector for the NDIS

Community Services
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Project management
Risk
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration
Workforce and capability

The Department of Family and Community Services has managed the risks of the transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in New South Wales effectively by increasing the overall capacity of the non-government sector and investing in provider capability.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is a major reform that aims to change the way disability support is provided and received. Responsibility for overseeing the system to support people with disability in New South Wales will transfer from the NSW Government to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), an independent statutory agency of the Australian Government. Eligible people with disability will receive individual funding from the NDIA and purchase support from their chosen service providers, rather than being referred to services funded or provided by government. The NSW Government will transfer all disability services it currently provides to the non-government sector.

Approximately 78,000 people received NSW Government-funded disability support in 2015–16 at a cost of around $3.3 billion. An estimated 142,000 people will have an individual NDIS support plan in New South Wales, with total funding rising to around $6.8 billion in 2018–19. NDIS trials began in New South Wales in 2013. The full scheme was introduced in July 2016 and is scheduled to be operating across the state by July 2018.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of the NSW Department of Family and Community Services' (the Department's) management of the risks of the NDIS transition in New South Wales. It focused on the Department's work to build the readiness of the non-government sector for the NDIS. To make this assessment, we asked whether:

  1. the Department supported the non-government sector to build capacity to meet the expected increase in demand under the NDIS
  2. the Department supported disability service providers in NSW to improve their capability to deliver NDIS services
  3. the Department's work to prepare for the NDIS has been coordinated with the Australian Government's NDIS readiness work.

In addition to the audit questions above, this audit identified principles governments should consider when building the capacity and capability of the non-government sector to deliver human services.

Conclusion

The Department of Family and Community Services has managed the risks of the transition to the NDIS in New South Wales effectively by increasing the overall capacity of the sector and investing in provider capability building initiatives. More work is needed to build the sector's capacity to provide services to people with more complex support needs and to help existing providers complete the transition to the NDIS successfully.

The Department expanded the capacity of the non-government sector over the past decade in a way that was consistent with NDIS objectives. The development of a national market and workforce for the NDIS is an Australian Government responsibility and the Department has supported the Australian Government's work. More targeted work will be needed to build the capacity of the non-government sector to provide services to people with the most complex support and access needs.

The Department invested in provider capability building by funding programs that were delivered in partnership with sector peak bodies. The larger programs were evaluated and received positive feedback, but many providers will need more support to transition to the NDIS. The overall impact of the programs on provider readiness for the NDIS is not clear because baseline information on provider capability was not collected and targets for improvement were not set.

The Department managed the transition coordination risks by establishing comprehensive governance arrangements, contributing to the Australian Government's sector development work through national policy coordination forums and sharing lessons from New South Wales.

Building the capacity of the non-government sector

The Department supported an increase in the capacity of non-government providers

The Department started building the capacity of the non-government sector before the NDIS was developed. This included moving services provided by government into the non‑government sector, funding early intervention and community-based disability support, and introducing some individual support packages. The Department checks that the business and operational systems of non-government disability providers are adequate. However, its understanding of the outcomes for people using the services is limited.

Service gaps are possible for people with more complex support or access needs

There are risks to the supply of services to people who have more complex support or access needs, including people who need specialist clinical support, people in remote areas, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The Department has supported the NDIA's initial market development work and funded some programs to help providers build their capacity to support these groups.  However, there is a risk the market will not expand quickly enough to meet the increase in demand for services.

Sector sustainability depends on support from outside the disability services sector

The sustainability of funded disability services provided by the non-government sector depends on support from outside the sector. Most people with disability receive significant unpaid support from family members, so carers will play a key role in the sustainability of the NDIS. There are opportunities for organisations that do not provide specific disability services to contribute to sector sustainability by providing some NDIS services. To do this, many will need help to make their services more accessible and inclusive to people with disability.

Helping non-government providers develop their capability

The Department invested in capability building programs for providers

The Department has spent more than $30 million over six years on programs that aim to improve the capability of disability support providers. This work began before the NDIS was established and was adjusted to focus on NDIS readiness from December 2012. It was guided by an industry development strategy that was developed after consultation with the sector and delivered in partnership with sector peak bodies. This approach gave the sector some responsibility for developing its own capability, which is important because the sector will not receive support from the NSW Government after the transition to the NDIS.

The overall impact of the programs on the capability of providers is not clear

The overall effectiveness of the Department's spending on provider capability is not clear. The Department had some information on the general financial health and organisational capability of providers from previous industry development work. However, baseline information on provider capability was not collected before programs commenced and targets for improvements in provider capability were not set. Without this information, the Department cannot demonstrate clearly that the capability building programs it funded represent good value for money.

Most providers will need more support to transition to the NDIS effectively

In late 2015, the Department assessed the transition progress of providers in New South Wales. This assessment indicates almost one third of providers are highly likely to need additional assistance to transition to the NDIS successfully, with only 14 per cent unlikely to need further assistance. We conducted a survey of 299 providers in New South Wales in August 2016. Most reported that they feel they are on track to transition to the NDIS successfully. Sixty-two per cent said the Department-funded programs and resources they had used had improved their readiness for the NDIS. Fifty-four per cent said the changes made because of using these programs and resources had a lasting impact on their organisation.

Coordinating sector development

Governance systems and planning processes for the NDIS transition were established

The Department developed governance arrangements for the transition in New South Wales. It contributed actively to the development of national policy and strategy documents including a strategy for national market development.

The Department shared sector readiness lessons with the Australian Government

Two NDIS sector readiness programs funded by the NSW Government were later expanded to national programs through funding from the Australian Government. New South Wales only received around five per cent of the total Australian Government funding for NDIS sector readiness initiatives. A report by the Australian National Audit Office in 2016 found there was limited evidence of a strategic approach by the Australian Government when allocating this funding to states and territories.

The Department has monitored transition issues and mitigated these where possible

The Department has monitored administrative issues for providers, which have included the changes in funding arrangements and registering for the NDIS. It has taken action to mitigate these where possible, although some issues, such as the operation of NDIA administrative systems, are beyond its control.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)

The NDIS is a fundamental change to the disability support system

The NDIS is a major reform that aims to make significant changes to the way disability support is provided and received. Under the NDIS, the administration of funding for disability support in New South Wales will transfer from the NSW Government to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), an independent statutory agency of the Australian Government. The NSW and Australian Governments will both contribute to funding the NDIS. The size of the disability services sector in New South Wales is expected to more than double when the NDIS is fully operational (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1: Estimated increase in the disability services sector under the NDIS
Measure of sector capacity Pre-NDIS (2015-16) NDIS (2018-19)
Funding for services $3.3 billion $6.8 billion
People receiving support 78,000 142,000
Workforce required 25,000-30,000 48,000-59,000
Number of providers 699 Determined by the market
Sources: NSW Government Budget Paper No.3, 2015–16; NDIS NSW Market Position Statement, March 2016; Department of Family and Community Services Funding Management System, 2015–16 (unpublished).

One of the main objectives of the NDIS is to increase the choice and control that people with disability have over the support they receive. Under the NDIS, people with disability receive individual funding packages which they can use to pay their chosen providers for the support they need, instead of being referred to services that are deemed appropriate for their needs. This is a fundamental change to the nature of disability support. Before the NDIS, people with disability were moved around the system according to decisions made by government or other organisations providing disability support. Under the NDIS, the funding will move around the system based on the choices people with disability make. The development of the new market for NDIS disability services is expected to take up to ten years because the changes to the system are so extensive.

In addition to increasing choice and control for participants, the NDIS aims to:

  • improve outcomes for people with disability by intervening early to help reduce the need for support later in life
  • increase integration by helping people with disability access mainstream government services such as health and education
  • increase the involvement of people with disability in the community by making it easier to access community services such as sports clubs and community groups.

The transition to the NDIS is underway

The transition to the NDIS is underway in most Australian states and territories, following trials over the last three years. In New South Wales, a trial site was established in the Hunter area in July 2013. Early roll out of the NDIS began in July 2015 for people aged under 18 in the Nepean Blue Mountains area. On 30 June 2016, about 7,800 people had an NDIS plan in the Hunter trial site and around 1,800 people had a plan in the Nepean Blue Mountains area.

The full roll out of the NDIS began in about half of New South Wales in July 2016. The NDIS will start operating in the rest of the state from July 2017 and the transition is scheduled to be completed by July 2018 (Exhibit 2).

For the rest of the transition, the Department of Family and Community Services should:

  1. Work with the Australian Government, NDIA and other NSW Government agencies to identify gaps and develop the capacity of specialist clinical services, focusing on regional and rural areas.
  2. Continue to implement projects to increase the number of organisations that can support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and culturally and linguistically diverse communities.
  3. Target remaining capability building assistance to less prepared providers, including via one-to-one support and mentoring in identified areas of weakness.
  4. Continue working with the Australian Government and the NDIA to ensure lessons from sector capability programs are shared.

Principles for developing the non-government sector

  1. Commence work to increase the capacity of the non-government sector early to allow time for service capacity to be built in a sustainable way.
  2. Decide whether to increase the capacity of the sector by supporting existing providers to expand their operations, attracting new organisations from outside the existing provider group, or some combination of these.
  3. Tailor approaches to supporting groups that have additional support or access needs because of cultural or geographic factors.
  4. Define the desired outcomes for people using services and, where possible, include outcomes in service delivery contracts.
  5. Invest in the sector by partnering with sector peak bodies to deliver capability programs.
  6. Include one-to-one support and mentoring in capability building programs where possible to improve the targeting of support to the specific needs of providers.
  7. Collect baseline information on provider capability before commencing programs and build robust tracking and evaluation into their design.
  8. Establish whole-of-government governance arrangements to ensure roles, responsibilities and accountability for delivery are clear.

Appendix one - Response from the Department

Appendix two - Survey of disability service providers

Appendix three - About the audit

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #280 - released 23 February 2017 

Published

Managing Overtime: RailCorp and Roads and Maritime Services

Transport
Management and administration
Workforce and capability

Overtime is a significant cost for RailCorp and Roads and Maritime Services, adding about ten per cent to the cost of regular salaries. RailCorp’s overtime cost was $133.7 million in 2010–11, and at Roads and Maritime Services it cost $49.3 million.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #223 - released 20 June 2012

View our audit program
View audit program
EXPLORE
upcoming audits
Have your say
CONTRIBUTE