Better, Brighter Futures:

Approved Preferred
Provider Scheme
Master Score System

Alec Fraher 2007

Information Box
 Document Purpose:

 Toprovide a balance score card of the

evidence submitted by Drug and Alcohol
Providers as part of the ‘Fitness for Purpose’
assessment and application for preferred
provider status.

 Themethodology makes use of Lean and Six

Sigma technology.
Master Score System: The Whole System

Design for Demand

Transparent Value Base Supportive and Effective Partnering

Effective Client Journey Optimal Management

X(PEN+PECVA)=2>

Compatibility of Process and Values Best Practice

Pursues Perfection Shared Aspirations

Financial managementDiversity
 Master Score System:X(PEN+PECVA)=2>
Audited
Financial Accounts

PEN Management

Purchaser Strategic, Relevance

Supportive
and effective

Expected Norms partnering

and Rationale

Meeting Need –
business and clinical Optimal
Management
governance

Originality and
Impact Best
Stakeholder practice

Engagement
Resource
Diversity Allocation Shared
Aspirations
Master Score System: X(PEN+PECVA)=2>

Level of Customer Integration (x)

Processes Pursues
and Values Perfection
Designed for
are
Customer
Compatible
Demand
Values
Evident
in Client
Journey Level of
Has a Clear
Customer
and
Integration
Transparent
Value Base
 Master Score System: X(PEN+PECVA)=2>
PECVA

Provider Evidence
of Consistent
Processes Value Application Staffing
Adaptability Training and
Involvement
Monitoring
Attitudes
Credibility
Senior Leadership
Benefits beyond Engagement
the person
Clinical Leadership

Organisation
Aims and Cultural
Fit
Infrastructure
PECVA: Process Evidence

 Monitoring Progress
There is evidence of Score
systems in place to
communicate progress 6.7
and change to all with
named actions
There is evidence of Score
systems in place to
monitor change but this is 3.3
not communicated to all
There is evidence of Score
systems and
communication but nothing 2.4
happens
There is no evidence of Score
systems or communication
0.0
PECVA: Process Evidence

 Adaptability

Processes can be adapted to meet changing Score

demand and improve services
7.0
Processes can be changed but there is no Score
system for continuous quality management
3.4
Processes are rigid but there is continuous Score
quality management
2.4
There are no systems Score

0.0
PECVA: Process Evidence

 Credibility
Process are visible and Score
recognisable and the
results believable and 9.1
supported by
stakeholders

The processes are not Score

visible but are supported
by stakeholders 6.3

The processes are visible Score

but are supported by
evidence but not believed 3.1
by stakeholders

Processes are not Score

believed nor supported
0.0
PECVA: Process Evidence

 Benefits Beyond the The processes improve treatment Score

effectiveness and make using
Person services easier 8.7

The processes improve treatment Score

effectiveness but do not make using
services easier 4.7

The processes do not improve Score

treatment effectiveness but does
make using services easier 4.0

No improvement in treatment Score

effectiveness or service users/carers
experience 0.0
PECVA: Staffing Evidence

 Training and Involvement

Staff are involved Score
in business
planning and are 11.5
adequately
supported and
trained to improve
practice
Staff are involved Score
in business
planning but are 4.9
not trained in this

Staff are not Score

involved in
business planning 6.3
but are receive
training when
requested
Staff are not Score
involved or trained
0.0
PECVA: Staffing Evidence

 Attitudes Staff feel empowered

and believe in the
Score

future 11.0

Staff feel empowered Score

but don’t believe in
the future 5.1

Staff don’t feel Score

empowered but
believe in the future 5.1

Don’t feel Score

empowered or
believe in the future 0.0
PECVA: Staffing Evidence

 Senior Leadership Senior managers take Score

responsibility for leading
and sharing plans with 15.0
staff; staff seek help and
advice

Senior managers don’t Score

take responsibility but do
share information about 6.2
plans

Senior managers do take Score

responsibility for plans but
doesn’t share information 5.7
and others don’t seek
advice

Doesn’t take responsibility Score

nor share information or
advise 0.0
PECVA: Staffing Evidence

 Clinical Leadership Has a clear clinical lead Score

and takes responsibility for
decision making, sharing 15.0
information with staff; staff
seek help and advice
without prompting
Has clinical lead but does Score
not take responsibility for
decision making, but does 6.2
advise staff

Takes clinical Score

responsibility but others do
not take advice or seek 5.7
help

Does not take Score

responsibility nor share
information or give advice 0.0
PECVA: Organisation Evidence

 Aims and Cultural Fit

Shows historical success of improving Score
services in line with stated aims and
objectives 7.2

Shows historical success of managing Score

change but inconsistent application of
aims and objectives 3.3

Has no history of managing change but Score

the aims and objectives are upheld
3.5

Has no history of success and Score

inconsistently applies aims and
objectives 0.0
PECVA: Organisation Evidence

 Infrastructure Staff facilities, job Score

descriptions,
policies and
procedures,
communication 9.7
systems are in place
and fit for purpose
Has the right staffing Score
levels but poor job
descriptions, 4.4
policies and
procedures

Job descriptions, Score

policies and
procedures etc are 3.3
adequate but does
not have the right
staffing
Has failed to Score
implement proper
job descriptions, 0.0
policies and
procedures
Master Score System: Balance Score Card
 Monitoring Progress

 Adaptability

 Credibility

 Benefits Beyond the Person

 Training and Involvement

 Attitudes

 Senior Management Leadership

 Clinical Leadership

 Aims and Cultural Fit

 Infrastructure

Sample perfect