Identifying scope for improvement through better comparison
Offers better comparison than conventional benchmarking
The key difference between CQC and more conventional benchmarking techniques is the way in which the analysis takes account of each Authority’s individual circumstances so that participating Authorities can be compared on a like for like basis.
The statistical model quantifies the effect of differences that size and scale, service quality and customer perception have on an authority’s costs. It does this by taking a number of factors into account and quantifies their individual effect on cost for each member as a series of cost adjustments. The model currently controls for the following:
The sum of all the cost adjustments, both positive and negative, gives a ‘Total Adjustment’, the amount by which the model adjusts each authority's costs to reflect its individual characteristics.
Identifies potential for efficiency savings
Once all the cost adjustments have been made the analysis identifies the authority that is operating at minimum cost. With this minimum cost established the statistical model can be used to forecast a theoretical minimum cost for every authority in the network. This theoretical minimum cost represents a unique benchmark for every authority, reflecting their individual characteristics.
An authority’s minimum cost can be used to measure its scope for improvement, its potential for efficiency savings; the amount by which the Authority could theoretically reduce its cost by adopting best practice, whilst maintaining the same levels of quality and public satisfaction.
We are calling the difference between an authority’s actual costs and its minimum cost an ‘unexplained difference’ at this stage.
For more information on the CQC Efficiency Network contact: firstname.lastname@example.org