2 General findings of the Consistency Panel
After reviewing auditors’ grades for DHBs’ service performance information (and associated systems and controls), the results were:
- Needs improvement – 12 DHBs. The five DHBs discussed in this paper stood out as having made good progress.
- Poor – 8 DHBs.
The Consistency Panel considered nine factors, set out in Table 1, to be particularly important.
Table 1: Key factors assessed when reviewing the 2010–13 SOIs
|
* Although not required by the Crown Entities Act, the presentation of measures for both outcomes and impacts can enhance the performance information.
The Consistency Panel’s general observations were that most DHBs had made notable improvements in their 2010-13 SOIs, compared with the previous year. It found that:
"For those DHBs the Panel considers are making good progress, a major factor is their apparent understanding of the difference between outputs and impacts/outcomes, the clear separation of these in their intervention logic models, and the avoidance of confusing one with the other either in the framework or in the measures attached to them (i.e. measures of service delivery are attached to outputs and true impact measures are attached to impacts).
Those DHBs that have made only little or some progress are still grappling with basic performance framework issues."
However, the Consistency Panel found that all DHBs still needed to:
- ensure that the DHB’s most significant services were properly covered; and
- report more measures of service quality.