> Resources and Publications > PHC RIS infonet > June 2006 > The impact of the NQPS on Division planning

The impact of the NQPS on Division planning

The Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute (APHCRI) recently conducted a study of the early impacts of the national performance indicators (NPIs) on Divisions of General Practice. Interviews were conducted with a random sample of 28 Division CEOs, and with the Australian Divisions of General Practice (ADGP) and State Based Organisations (SBOs). The study focused on impacts on planning, impacts on program delivery, and anticipated future use of performance information.

Impacts on planning

All CEOs reported support for the concept of national performance indicators. Although a number reported initial concern that the new requirements would be too ambitious, they appear to have finished the first planning cycle confident that they could meet expectations in the first year. Planning tended to be more internally focused, more internally inclusive and more time consuming. CEOs were confident that their planning processes would allow them to meet at least the minimum requirements in the first year.

Impacts on program delivery

Emphases within programs are changing to accommodate accreditation and data collection and analysis. There is a widespread view that these requirements are putting pressure on core funding and diverting resources away from local programs. In the main, the fit between local programs and national objectives is perceived to be good but there are issues relating to priorities and relevance, particularly in rural and remote areas, and concerns about further channelling of resources into meeting the NPIs if future expectations are too high.

Use of performance indicators in future

All CEOs interviewed plan to use performance information to inform their own activities and most expect to have a better idea of the value and potential uses of the data following a full year planning and reporting cycle. Most are looking to feed back performance data to general practices, but recognise that there is still a lot of work to be done with GPs to demonstrate the value of performance information. Consequently many CEOs believe that feedback of performance data to GPs is a longer term objective. Some CEOs see great potential for using indicator data in regional planning forums and all believe that the Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIDU) profiles will be of great assistance for program planning.

For further information contact:
Beverly Sibthorpe
Ph: 02 6125 0766
E: beverly.sibthorpe@anu.edu.au
Web: www.anu.edu.au/aphcri