 |
 |
Hi, I did a comparison of 4 methods of cost-benefit analysis in occupational health for my dissertation. The methods included: * comparison of costs with an alternative supplier - competetive tendering; * comparison of costs with the time lost costs when staff have to go off site for the same treatment (mainly imms for hospital workers); * comparison of costs with effect of work - negotiated reduction in insurance following careful risk management and occupational health provision, sickness absence reduction, prospective litigation etc.; * comparison of methods of conducting activities (and their cost implication) with other methods of delivery that achieve similar results. Unfortunately I do not have my dissertation at work however the audit model I used went something along the following - please excuse poetic TOG induced variations: workers health occupational-related ill health input (manpower, resources etc) output outcome (Can't do lines to demonstrate this properly sorry) YOu can audit the difference between the output and outcome - is it effective YOu can audit the difference between the input and the outcome - is it efficent You can audit the difference between the input and the output - is it economic You can audit the difference between the input and the effect of the outcome on occupational-related ill health - is there a cost benefit The outcome should be a reduction in occupational related ill health, which should have a positive impact on the workers health Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on which part of the Machavellian principle you subscribe to) you can use different methods to help you prove what you want to prove. THere are so many uncostable indirect effects an OH dept has, it is difficult to fully appreciate its true value (opinion). I assisted with an audit of the Northern and Yorkshire Regional Health Authorities NHS Occupational Health Units. It appeared to me that those who were contracted in to perform specific functions - health surveillance, immunisation etc. could not meet the needs of those coming through the doors with unusual but genuine problems. "It may be felt" that it is these problems that contribute towards the indirect and uncostable value effects of an OH dept. Efficiency, effectiveness and economy are always worth auditing. It is also extremely important to be able to demonstrate that you are able to positively contribute towards the overall mission of the organisation. If you can demonstrate you are able to save the organisation more than your budget your position within the organisation is more likely to be secure. Annual reports are a great tool in this process. Hope this helped abit Amanda Dowson Health Services Manager Bradford College > -----Original Message----- > From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 9:18 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Audit of occupational health services > > We are considering conducting an audit and "value for money" survey of our > > occupational health supplier and of the services they are providing to the > > organisation. There seems to be a reasonable amount of information on the > > former but I have not come across much information on the latter. > > I have been intouch with a couple of specialist organisations who carry > out > this sort of work but would be interested;- > 1) to hear from anyone who has done this in the past. > 2) How successful this was > 3) Of any good research that has been carried out in this area > > Many thanks > > Lindsey Hall > National Occupational Health Manager > Environment Agency > Tel 01454 624013 > Wk Email [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%