Phase 2- Work Level Evaluation Principles & Process Overview

1. Phase 2- Work Level Evaluation Principles & Process Overview

2. HP Phase 2- Evaluation Methodology Flowchart

3. 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

4. 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)

5. STEP 1 – STANDARDISED DATA SET Outputs • Standardised Data Set for each work unit including: • WUP • Role Descriptions • Merged EIA/ Redesign materials

7. 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.

8. STEP 2- WORK LEVEL EVALUATION • 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:

9. STEP 2- WORK LEVEL EVALUATION • 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.

10. STEP 2- WORK LEVEL EVALUATION 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

11. STEP 2- WORK LEVEL EVALUATION • 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.

12. STEP 2- WORK LEVEL EVALUATION 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,

13. STEP 2- WORK LEVEL EVALUATION 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

14. 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)

15. Evaluation Process Guidelines- General • 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

16. Evaluation Process Guidelines- General • The WLE Panels are not responsible for the creation of new Role Descriptions

17. Evaluation Process Guidelines- General • 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

18. Evaluation Process Guidelines- General • 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

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. Evaluation Process Guidelines- Employee Initiated Applications (EIA) • 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.

23. Evaluation Process Guidelines- Employee Initiated Applications (EIA) • 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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

30. 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.

31. STEP 3- INTRA-DISCIPLINARY RELATIVITY/CONSISTENCY REVIEW • 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 ).

32. STEP 3- INTRA-DISCIPLINARY RELATIVITY/CONSISTENCY REVIEW 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

33. STEP 3- INTRA-DISCIPLINARY RELATIVITY/CONSISTENCY REVIEW 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

34. STEP 3- INTRA-DISCIPLINARY RELATIVITY/CONSISTENCY REVIEW 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

35. STEP 3- INTRA-DISCIPLINARY RELATIVITY/CONSISTENCY REVIEW • 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)

36. 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.

37. 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

38. 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

39. STEP 5- HPIBB OVERSIGHT Membership: • 11 Union members (QPSU/LHMU) • 11 QH members

40. STEP 5- HPIBB OVERSIGHT • 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

41. 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

42. 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.