ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2022
Driving Efficiency Improvement (EI): Exploratory Analysis of a Centralised Model in New South Wales.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficiency Improvement Strategies for Public Health Systems: Developing and Evaluating a Taxonomy in the Australian Healthcare System.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Public healthcare systems face rising demand coupled with reducing funding growth rates, necessitating ongoing approaches to efficiency improvement (EI). Centrally coordinated EI approaches l may support EI leaders, yet few such approaches exist internationally. This study provides evidence to inform system-wide EI by harnessing understanding of the perceptions, role demands and support requirements of key EI stakeholders in the centralised EI model implemented in New South Wales. Methods: A purposive sample of key informants within NSW Health with responsibility for EI in their organisation were invited to participate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded and transcribed. A thematic analysis was undertaken using a theoretical deductive approach. Results: Seventeen respondents participated who occupied EI leadership roles in metro (8) and rural (6) health services as well as non-clinical support (3) services. Four primary themes emerged on the perceptions and experiences of participants in 1. holding a unique skillset which enables them to undertake EI; 2. inheriting EI accountabilities as additional duties rather than holding dedicated EI roles; 3. the importance of senior support for EI success; and 4. feelings of isolation in undertaking EI. An additional underpinning theme that EI is not well conceptualized in public health systems also emerged, whereby EI planners felt that frontline staff generally do not consider efficiency as a component of their duties. Conclusion: EI leaders provide points of authority, experience and influence across organisations within public health systems. This study finds that EI planners possess a unique skillset, can feel isolated both within their health organisation and within the broader public health system and believe that EI is poorly conceptualized amongst health staff. Centralised support for EI stakeholders across a public health system can promote knowledge sharing and capability development. Addressing the role and support requirements of key EI stakeholders is essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.