phase 2- work level evaluation principles & process overview

Phase 2- Work Level Evaluation Principles & Process Overview

HP Phase 2- Evaluation Methodology Flowchart

HP WLE Principles & Process Overview Final Endorsed - 24 of September 2008 Draft (not for distribution) and withoutPrejudice – Page 1

Work Level Evaluation Panel


Summaries to HPIBB Schedule 5; 9.3





Intra-disciplinary Relativity/Consistency Review

Standardised Data Set

Work Level Evaluation Team (Schedule 5; 6.4, 6.5, 9.2)

Inter-disciplinary Relativity/Consistency Review

Summaries to HPIBB Schedule 5; 9.3

Nb. Whole Process is overseen by HPIBB. CA 14.2, 14.4, 14.5, 15.2c, 15.2d Dotted lines/arrows = lines of enquiry Solid lines/arrows = lines of referral

Schedule 5; 9.2

HPIBB

HP Phase 2 Evaluation methodology flowchart

WL

ET

En

dors

ed

Sch

edule

5; 9

.3b

Schedule 5; 9.3a

Notification/ Implementation

Includes D.G. approval (Section 6, Health Services Act)

Schedule 5; 10 + CA 14

CA 19.14 District

Workforce

Post Evaluation Employee initiated

Appeals

CA Clause 15 and 19

Appeal panel convened

(CA19.6 Further Discussion required)

Summaries to HPIBB

(CA19.11)

QIRC CA 19.15

DG

CA

19

.12

, 19

.14

Outcome disputed by employee CA19.3

CA

19

.8,

19.9

Dispute no

t settled

WLE Process Methodology

• Step 1 - Standardised Data Set• Step 2 - Work Level Evaluation• Step 3 - Intra-Disciplinary

Relativity/Consistency Review• Step 4 - Inter-Disciplinary

Relativity/Consistency Review• Step 5 - HPIBB Oversight• Step 6 - Notification/Implementation• Post-Evaluation Appeals Process

STEP 1 – STANDARDISED DATA SET

Scope and Purpose:

• The Queensland Health Shared Service Provider (QHSSP) to check completeness of:

– Work Unit Proposals (WUP)

– Employee Initiated Applications (EIA)

STEP 1 – STANDARDISED DATA SET

Outputs

• Standardised Data Set for each work unit including:

– WUP– Role Descriptions– Merged EIA/ Redesign materials

Step 1Standardised Data Set

Is there an Org Chart and a proposed RD for each

employee, including those who have submitted EIA

WUPs and EIAs

No

Yes

Request information from WU Manager

Register WUPs and EIAs in HP database

and assign ID number

Associate EIA with corresponding WUP

Identify redesign proposals

Identify potential sole practitioner

positions

Provide reports to the HPIBB as requested

Standardised data

Is there a proposed aligned RD for

incumbent positions

Yes

No

STEP 2- WORK LEVEL EVALUATION

Scope and Purpose:

• To evaluate proposed role descriptions against the Work Level Statements (WLS) and determine the appropriate classification level.


• The work level evaluation methodology is premised on the Work Level Statements for each of the eight classification levels of the health practitioner classification structure.

• The work level evaluation is predicated on a holistic evaluation having regard for the following elements:


• Inputs – level of knowledge, skills and experience required including:

• Role scope• Accountability of role;

• Processing – what the position is required to do; • Outputs – defined in terms of responsibilities for

which the position is accountable.

These elements may be either– directly within the work unit; and/or– external to the work unit that provides a benefit to

Queensland Health.


Work Level Evaluation Panels consist of a:

• Discipline Panel comprising profession/discipline representatives, and one QHSSP representatives; or

• Work Unit Panel comprising one profession/discipline representative, and one QHSSP representative, where evaluation occurs within the context of a multidisciplinary work setting; or

• Combination of discipline representatives and QHSSP to meet the requirements of the evaluation process


• Variations to the composition of Work Level Evaluation Panels will be determined by the HPIBB Group on advice from the QHSSP and/or feedback from the discipline as a whole.


WLE Panels will undertake an evaluation process to:

– Understand the scope and accountabilities of the role,

– Consider its relativity to other positions within the Work Unit

– Determine an HP classification level,


Consideration given to:

• Vertical (hierarchical) alignment of accountabilities with reporting positions

• Horizontal alignment of accountabilities to ensure comparability and relativity with other HP positions in the work unit at the same classification level.

NB: Clinical positions may be evaluated at the same or higher classification level to the management position to which it operationally reports

Evaluation Process Guidelines- General

Where clarification or further information required, the WLE Panels will make enquiries with;

– The employee – The work unit manager – Discipline leader (where the work unit manager is not

an HP)


• A WLE Panel may seek further input/advise in relation to specialised issues through discussion with:

– Other WLE Panel members, – Discipline/specialty experts; or – Members of an approved Reference Group


• The WLE Panels are not responsible for the creation of new Role Descriptions


• WLE Panels to evaluate HP6-8 first

• When HP6-8 evaluations complete, the Intra-Discipline Relativity/Consistency Review (IDR) Group (Step 3) will be convened to review HP6-8


• WLE Panels to evaluate HP1-5

• When all evaluations are complete, the IDR Group will reconvene to review the relativity and consistency for that discipline.

• Internal consistency checks will be performed throughout the evaluation process to ensure consistency between panels

Evaluation Process Guidelines- Data Recording

The WLE Panel members will:

• consolidate notes taken during the evaluation process into a Health Practitioner Evaluation Record

• note the date of completion of the evaluation and their identities in the WLE database for use of WLET

– The evaluation record will not show names of evaluators during the notification stage

• ensure that information pertinent to an employees’

evaluated role is available upon completion of the Phase 2 Evaluation process

Evaluation Process Guidelines- Evaluation Outcome

• Where WLEP members cannot agree on a particular classification level:

– The QHSSP team leader may provide some guidance

and/or advice to the WLEP members.

– The unresolved evaluation is to be referred to a second panel through the QHSSP team leader.

– WLE panels may combine to discuss outcomes, and make an evaluation decision by the majority of panellists.

Evaluation Process Guidelines- Employee Initiated Applications (EIA)

• The EIA and Role Description will be considered together for evaluation purposes.

• The WLEP will verify information provided and/or sought with regard for other Standardised Data Set enquiries and in the context of the Work Unit.


– Consideration of the two documents together may identify line/s of enquiry that the WLEP will direct to the employee and/or the discipline leader, and/or the work unit manager.

– The role will be evaluated in its entirety and any points of difference between the RD and EIA will be documented.

– WLE Panels will form an assessment for individual employees based upon an overall view of the material that was submitted.


• WLEP members will verify the accuracy of relevant material provided in the EIA and the WUP

• WLEP members will record their assessment, based upon what has been able to be verified, in the Health Practitioner Evaluation Record

• During the Notification stage, a final version of the Health Practitioner Evaluation Record will be returned to the work unit manager for reconciliation and generation into a new Role Description.

– This is a separate local process.

Evaluation Process Guidelines- Multidisciplinary

– Disciplines are evaluated with a regard for the work unit as:

• a single discipline or • a multidisciplinary work unit.

– WLEPs may be convened for those disciplines that fall within a multidisciplinary work setting

– WLEPs are given the Standardised Data Set for each discipline they are evaluating, so that they can evaluate in the context of the multidisciplinary WUP.

Evaluation Process Guidelines- Multidisciplinary

– The Work Unit Panels will be expected to give consideration to the other disciplines within the work unit as they are evaluating.

– Each evaluator should be able to recognise the levels of knowledge, skills, experience and accountabilities, and identify anomalies as they are occurring within the multidisciplinary work unit.

Evaluation Process Guidelines- Reference Group

The Work Unit Panels may initiate communication with a Reference Group to provide an understanding of:

• the multidisciplinary operational structure;

• duties and/or dynamics;

• general information regarding reporting relationships: and

• any other matters influencing the organisational context and/or the HP roles performed.

Evaluation Process Guidelines- Reference Group

• Example of Reference groups may include:

– Mental Health– Community Health– Aged Care Assessment Team– Oral Health– Population Health– CaSS and/or;– Other work areas determined by the HPIBB

Group.

Evaluation Process Guidelines- Outputs

• HP Evaluation Record for each role description

• Discipline Evaluation Recommendation Report including;

– Whole of discipline distribution of evaluated classification levels

– Rationalisation for variations in terms of• Facility/work unit size• Geographical factors• Services provided• Work Unit staffing profile

Is Data able to be evaluated

Yes

No

Request information from employee, WU Manager and/or discipline leader

Evaluate HP 6-8 RDs

Standardised Data

Are inconsistencies identified

No

Yes

Step 2Work Level Evaluation

Prepare Step 2 Outputs

Can the inconsistencies be justified without further

investigation?

No

Yes

Perform internal consistency check

Do panel members agree on a classification

Level?No

Document information

Document information

QHSSP Team Leader to refer to

second panel

Prepare HP Evaluation Record

Do panel member agree with

classification Level?

Yes

Yes

Refer to combined panel forum – majority

decision

Convene Intra-disciplinary Relativity Consistency

Review for HP6-8

Evaluate HP1-5 RDs

Request information from employee, WU Manager and/or discipline leader

No

STEP 3- INTRA-DISCIPLINARY RELATIVITY/CONSISTENCY REVIEW

Scope and Purpose:

• To review the relativity and consistency of HP evaluation outcomes within a discipline across departments/units and Districts.


• WLE Panel members to come together jointly with members from the WLE Team to review the relativities and consistency of classification levels across a discipline or profession.

• This group is called the Intra-disciplinary Relativity/Consistency Review Group (IDR ).


Membership:

• Work Level Evaluation Panel(s)

• Work Level Evaluation Team members

– 2 WLET members (workforce)– 2 WLET members (management including at

least one Health Practitioner)

• Impartial Facilitator


WLET members review evaluation outcomes based on: – methodology and – content of the proposed role descriptions

WLET members may seek clarification from the WLEP members in these areas


WLEP members are responsible for the evaluations

WLEP members will provide responses to queries from the WLET members

NB: Work Unit Managers and/or employees may only be contacted by the WLEP members


• When all enquiries from the WLET members have been satisfied, the IDR Group will collectively pass the evaluation outcomes to the Inter-disciplinary Relativity/Consistency Review (Step 4)

STEP 4- INTER-DISCIPLINARY RELATIVITY/CONSISTENCY REVIEW

Scope and Purpose:

• To review the relativity and consistency of classification levels across the HP workforce between

– disciplines/professions, – Districts, Departments and – Work Units.

STEP 4- INTER-DISCIPLINARY RELATIVITY/CONSISTENCY REVIEW

Membership:

• 8 WLET members (workforce)

• 8 WLET members (management including 4 HP’s)

• Impartial facilitator

• The entire 16 individuals are present for this process

STEP 5- HPIBB OVERSIGHT

Scope and Purpose:

• To oversee the Work Level Evaluation Project

• To provide direction to the WLE Panels and WLE Team regarding process related issues


Membership:

• 11 Union members (QPSU/LHMU)

• 11 QH members


• Review Progress reports

• Respond to reports of vexatious cycles

• Review the HP Work Level Evaluation Final Outcome Report.

• Seek further information from the Work Level Evaluation Panels where required

• Request that the Work Level Evaluation Team reconsider its methodology to ensure that it complies with the guiding principles of Phase 2

• Forward the final evaluation outcomes to the Director General for final approval

STEP 6- NOTIFICATION/IMPLEMENTATION

Scope and Purpose:• To provide notification of evaluation outcomes

to:

– employee (in all cases), – the Work Unit manager (for their work unit), – District Human Resource Management, – QHSSP and – Corporate Office

NB: This must occur simultaneously to enable effective management of grievances and appeals

STEP 6- NOTIFICATION/IMPLEMENTATION

Membership:• QHSSP• HPIBB Coordinating Sub Group• Other QH administrative areas/processes

Process:• QHSSP will initiate the release of the

Evaluation outcomes to HR payroll as well as all HP managers.

phase 2- work level evaluation principles & process overview

Documents

classification level

work level evaluationstep

hpibb schedule

hpibb ca19

standardised data setscope

standardised data setstep

employee ca19

discipline norequest