An evaluation of New Zealand’s iterative Workforce Service Reviews: a new way of thinking about health workforce planning
Lucio Naccarella A C , Louise Greenstock A and Brenda Wraight BA Australian Health Workforce Institute, University of Melbourne, Level 3, 766 Elizabeth Street, Parkville, Vic. 3010, Australia. Email: lgreens@unimelb.edu.au
B Health Workforce New Zealand, Level 2, No. 1 The Terrace, Wellington 6011, New Zealand.
C Corresponding author. Email: l.naccarella@unimelb.edu.au
Australian Health Review 37(2) 251-255 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH12183
Submitted: 21 May 2012 Accepted: 10 October 2012 Published: 15 March 2013
Abstract
Objective. To ensure New Zealand’s health workforce was fit for purpose, Health Workforce New Zealand (HWNZ) funded Workforce Service Reviews (WSRs) to develop visions for service reconfiguration and workforce for 2020. This paper describes what makes the WSR processes work, for whom, and in what circumstances.
Method. Semi-structured interviews informed by a realist evaluation approach were conducted to obtain perceptions and experiences of WSR participants from four WSRs: eye health, palliative care, anaesthesia and aged care.
Results. The WSR process was a successful means of bringing together professionals from across the health disciplines and building sector capacity to develop new ways of thinking about service and workforce planning. WSRs were constrained by: mixed signals about process and outcomes; being challenged not milestone focussed; lacking clarity about ownership of visions; and variable clarity about next steps. WSRs were optimised by having: a lead clinician with policy know-how, ability to inspire, bring people together, distil ideas into coherent frameworks; and a project manager with project enablement skill sets and expertise in complex systems, implementation, change management.
Conclusions. Evidence now exists at a point in time about what makes the WSR processes work. Implications for HWNZ are presented using a capacity-building framework to inform future decision making regarding WSRs.
What is known about the topic? More appropriate workforce planning is required to meet the challenges facing the health workforce, from both the demand and the workforce side. To ensure New Zealand’s healthcare workforce was fit for purpose, HWNZ initiated an iterative WSR process in topic specific areas. The WSRs process was designed to develop a vision of the relevant health service and workforce for 2020, and models of care that were patient-centred and team-based.
What does this paper add? The paper provides evidence that the WSR process was a successful means for bringing together professionals from across the health disciplines and building sector capacity to develop new ways of thinking about service and workforce planning. The paper presents key enablers of, and barriers to, the WSR iterative process.
What are the implications for practitioners? The evaluation revealed that a multitude of factors can influence the capacity of the WSR process at the individual (workforce skills and abilities), organisational (leadership and interactions) and systems (infrastructure) levels. Implications for HWNZ on ways to build the capacity of the WSRs according to three capacity-building dimensions are presented to inform future decision making.
References
[1] Gorman DF. The utility of idealised patient journeys as a centre-piece of health workforce planning Asia Pacific J Health Manag 2010; 5 8–13.[2] Gorman DF, Brooks PM. On solutions to doctor shortages in Australia and New Zealand. Med J Aust 2009; 190 152–6.
[3] Health Workforce Advisory Committee. Fit for purpose and for practice: a review of the medical workforce in New Zealand (Consultation document). Wellington, New Zealand. Health Workforce Advisory Committee; 2008. Available at http://www.hwac.govt.nz/publications/hwac-fitforpurposeconsultationdocument.pdf [verified 7 January 2013].
[4] Fogel RW. The escape from hunger and premature death: 1700–2100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004
[5] Zurn P, Dumont JC. Health workforce and international migration: can New Zealand compete? WHO DELSA/HEA/WD/HWP (2008) 3. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/41/40673065.pdf [verified 7 January 2013].
[6] National Health Workforce Taskforce; 2008. Available at http://www.nhwt.gov.au/nhwt.asp[verified 7 January 2013]
[7] Brooks P, Ellis N. Workforce reform: Rising to the challenge; 2007. Available at http://cpd.org.au/article-health [verified 7 January 2013]
[8] Bosworth DL, Wilson RA, Baldauf B. Who does workforce planning well? A rapid review for the Workforce Review Team. Coventry, Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick; 2007. Available at http://www.nwph.net/champs/Lists/Weekly%20Bulliten/Attachments/172/Who%20does%20workforce%20planning%20well.pdf [verified 7 January 2013]
[9] Hurst K. Primary and community care workforce planning and development. J Adv Nurs 2006; 55 757–69.
[10] Curson JA, Dell ME, Wilson RA, Bosworth DL, Baldauf B. Who does workforce planning well?: Workforce review team rapid review summary. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2010; 23 110–9.
| Who does workforce planning well?: Workforce review team rapid review summary.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3M3ltlGktw%3D%3D&md5=0aba4a5e9735cf6a8a48be5311acde4cCAS |
[11] Imison C, Buchan J, Xavier S. NHS workforce planning: limitations and possibilities; 2009. Available at www.kingsfund.org.uk/document.rm?id=8473 [verified 7 January 2013]
[12] Health Workforce New Zealand (HWNZ). 2010. Available at http://www.healthworkforce.govt.nz/our-work/workforce-service-reviews [verified 7 January 2013]
[13] Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage; 1997.
[14] Funnell S. Program logic: an adaptable tool for designing and evaluating programs Evaluation News and Comment 1997; 6 5–17.
[15] Gittell JH. High performance healthcare: using the power of relationships to achieve quality, efficiency and resilience. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009.
[16] Williams P. The competent boundary spanner Public Adm 2002; 80 103–24.
| The competent boundary spannerCrossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Christakis A, Brahms S. Boundary-spanning dialogue for the 21st-century agoras Syst Res 2003; 20 371–82.
| Boundary-spanning dialogue for the 21st-century agorasCrossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Lave J, Wenger E. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
