Balanced Scorecard - Carewest

Balanced Scorecard

• Balanced Budget • Overtime /Agency Use

•Staff Engagement •Performance Appraisal

Completion •Staff Turnover Rate •Vacancy Rate •Absenteeism •Lost Time Claim Frequency •PIR Audit Results •Altercations in the Workplace

•Utilization Rates •New Capacity Occupancy Rate

•Client Satisfaction •Hand Hygiene •Rate of Seasonal Influenza

Immunization •Discharges to Acute Care •Continuing Care Health Services

Standards Audit Results •Accommodation Standards

Audit Results

Satisfied Clients

Targeted Service

Development

Cost Effective Organization

Progressive Work

Environment

Q3

Year End

2015-16 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Target Page

Satisfied Clients F 13 G 13 H 13 I 13

Client Satisfaction - Rehabilitation & Recovery 95.60% 95.2% 95.0% 93.9% 0.0% >90% 1

Client Satisfaction - Community Services 91% 88.5% 99.4% 98.4% 0.0% >90% 3

Client Satisfaction - LTC Residents2 92.80%Reported

Q4

Reported

Q4

Reported

Q4 >85% -

Hand Hygiene Audits 97% 98.0% 98.0% 98.3% 0.0% >90% 5

Rates of Seasonal Influenza Immunization (LTC)2 87.80%Reported

Q3

Reported

Q387.0%

Reported

Q3>95% 7

Outbreak rate - Gastrointestinal 2 1.96%Reported

Q4

Reported

Q4

Reported

Q40.00% TBD -

Outbreak rate - Respiratory 2 0.62%Reported

Q4

Reported

Q4

Reported

Q40.00% TBD -

Discharges to Acute Care as Percentage of Beds 17.7% 14.3% 14.9% 16.9% 0% <13.5% 8

Continuing Care Standards Met2 94.20% 59% No Audit 74.0%Reported

Q1100% 11

Accommodations Standards Met2 76.70%Reported

Q3

Reported

Q3100.0%

Reported

Q3100% 13

Targeted Service Development

LTC/SL4 Utilization Rate1 98.50% 98.4% 98.6% 98.5% 0.0% >99% 14

Hospice Utilization Rate1 83.00% 91.1% 89.0% 89.4% 75.2% >85% 16

R&R Utilization Rate1 99.10% 97.0% 97.7% 98.2% 82.5% >97% 18

Community Services Utilization Rate1 92.50% 91.2% 89.1% 91.2% 0.0% >90% 20

Progressive Work Environment

Staff Overall Engagement2 92%Reported

Q4

Reported

Q4

Reported

Q4#DIV/0! >85% -

Annual Performance Appraisal Completion Rate1 86% 83% 83% 79% 0% >90% 22

Staff Commitment - Annualized Turnover Rate1 5.8% 5.2% 5.4% 5.3% 0.0 <8% 24

Vacancy1 2.30% 2.1% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% <4% 26

Absenteeism - Sick Rate 41% 42% 44% 38% 0.00% TBD 27

Lost Time Claim Frequency 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.7% 0 <0.5% 29

Aggression in the Workplace 1.80% 2.3% 2.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0% 31

PIR Annual Audit Results2 93%No Audit

This Year

No Audit

This Year

No Audit

This Year

Reported

Q1>95% -

Cost Effective Organization

Balanced Budget (Variance)1 0.05% 1.0% 2.6% 0.50% 0.00% >.8% 33

Overtime/Agency Costs as a Percentage of Cost of Total

Worked Hours1 1.00% 0.73% 0.86% 0.82% 0.00 <1% 34

1 Rolling average - Q4 is year end 2 Annual indicator

Balanced Scorecard 2016/17

Goal Area:

• Satisfied Clients ■ • Progressive Work Environment □

• Targeted Service Development □ • Cost Effective Organization □

2015/16 2016/17Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Satisfaction Rate (percentage) 97.90% 96.80% 96.50% 95.60% 95.24% 95.00% 93.88% 0.0Target (percentage) 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%Sample Size 195 173 256 181 215 0 196 0

CAREWEST CORPORATE PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

Client Experience - Rehabilitation & Recovery Programs

Rehabilitation & Recovery Client Experience Rate

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers in Rehabilitation & Recovery Programs

Definition: Number of R&R clients responding positively to "Overall I am satisfied" to total number of responses .

Analysis: Q3

Plan for Improvement/Timelines: Units to review specific results and identify any key themes

Gradual downward trend continues - while some units may need to review client engagement processes, there is a consistent area of concern related to meal satisfaction.

Data Source: R&R Client Survey results collated quarterly by Quality & Service Improvement

Why it's important High performing teams value input from clients to provide insights as to where the team is working well

and where there are opportunities to improve. Surveys are one of several ways to collect this data.

Limitations: Values are based on those clients who choose to respond to the survey.

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Satisfaction Rate (percentage) Target (percentage)

1

Q1#

Responses

Discharge

#

Response

RateQ2

#

Responses

Discharge

#

Response

RateQ3 # Responses

Discharge

#

Response

RateQ4 # Responses

Discharge

#

Response

Rate

GlenmoreParkGMP-MSK 100.0% 40 77 52% 88.6% 71 88.4% 43 92 47%GMP- 1E RCTP 97.5% 40 82 49% 100.0% 77 96.4% 28 91 31%GMP- 2W RCTP 100.0% 10 66 15% 87.5% 66 90.9% 11 57 19%GMP-2E RCTP 100.0% 13 57 23% 94.1% 55 100.0% 5 64 8%GMP- GMH 100.0% 14 38 37% 95.7% 44 100.0% 9 34 26%FanningFanning Neuro 84.4% 32 74 43% 100.0% 57 94.3% 35 72 49%Fanning RCTP 91.5% 71 101 70% 93.0% 115 93.2% 44 116 38%SarceeSarcee RCTP 100.0% 32 104 31% 100.0% 97 100.0% 21 93 23%Carewest Aggregate 95.2% 252 599 42% 95.0% 582 93.9% 196 619 32%

Rehabilitiation and Recovery Satisfaction Survey - Unit Specific

2

Goal Area:



2015/2016 2016/2017Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Satisfaction Rate % 100.0% 99% 0.0% 91.1% 88.5% 99.4% 98.4% 0.0%Target percentage 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0%Sample size 29 152 0 61 0 53 220 0

Note 1: No surveys administered in these quarters

Community Services Client Experience Rate


Client Experience- Community Services

Definition: Average number of clients responding positively to overall satisfaction with service received.

sample sizes vary by program - refer to Community Client Experience details page

Why it's important High performing teams value input from clients to provide insights as to where the team is working well and

where there are opportunities to improve. Surveys are one of several ways to collect this data.

Limitations: Values are based on those clients who choose to respond to the survey.

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers in Community Programs

Analysis: Q3

Plan for Improvement/Timelines: (required where target is not achieved)

Data Source: Community Programs Client Experience Surveys collated quarterly by Inf. Management and Privacy

Strong results across the programs reporting this quarter. C3 is slightly lower but still reporting high levels of satisfaction.

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/2016 2016/2017

Satisfaction Rate % Target percentage

3

Q1 # ResponsesDischarge

#

Response

RateQ2

#

Responses

Discharge

#

Response

RateQ3

#

Responses

Discharge

#

Response

RateQ4

#

Responses

Discharge

#Seating Clinic 88.5% 28 100.0% 26 134 19% 96.3% 27 154 18%Day Hospital 100.0% 23 42 55% 100.0% 15 44 34%DH -Living with Dementia 100.0% 4 22 18% 100.0% 5 22 23%ASDP -SPASDP-CBYADSC3 SouthC3 NorthC3 total 97.4% 97.4%DAL NHDAL CBTotal 88.5% 28 0 99.4% 53 198 31% 98.4% 47 220 74%

Community Services Satisfaction Survey - Unit Specific

4

Goal Area:



2015/16 2016/17Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Positve Observation Rate (%) 97% 95% 97% 97% 98.0% 98.0% 98.3%Target percentage) 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%# Moments 857 773 542 790 980 848 663

Hand Hygiene Observations


Hand Hygiene Observations

Definition: total number of correct moments observed over total number of moments observed.

Limitations: Standard measurement in Canada is to inform staff that they are being observed prior to the observation

Why it's important Hand hygiene by staff and physicians contributes to a safer environment for clients, with reduced transmission of

communicable diseases.

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers in all programs

Analysis: Q3


Data Source: Hand Hygiene Audits completed at sites and coordinated by IPC Practitioner.

5 sites did not meet their quarterly target for number of observations.

3 units did not submit any observations for the quarter.

All sites combined reached 98% for correct hand hygiene moments observed.

Observers still require quarterly reminders from IP&C to complete hand hygiene observations.

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Positve Observation Rate (%)

Target percentage)

5

Site # of Moments# of Correct

Moments

Correct

MomentsComments

Adult Day Program 29 29 100%

Target 12.5 85%

Colonel Belcher - ADP 6 6

Signal Pointe - ADP 23 23

YADS 0 0

Colonel Belcher 23 23 100%

Target 50 85%

Colonel Belcher - 1st Floor 8 8

Colonel Belcher - 2nd Floor 15 15

C3 23 23 100%

Target 12.5 85%

Beddington - C3 8 8

Sarcee - C3 15 15

DAL 7 6 86%

Target 12.5 85%

Colonel Belcher - DAL 4 3

Nickle House - DAL 3 3

Dr Fanning 187 185 99%

Target 87.5 85%

Dr. Fanning - 1 East 48 48

Dr. Fanning - 1 West 6 6





Garrison Green 51 50 98%

Target 50 85%

Garrison Green - Unit 1, 1st Floor 13 13

Garrison Green - Unit 1, 2nd Floor 14 13

Garrison Green - Unit 2, 3rd Floor 12 12

Garrison Green - Unit 2, 4th Floor 12 12

George Boyack 75 74 99%

Target 87.5 85%

George Boyack - 2nd Floor 29 29

George Boyack - 3rd Floor 15 14

George Boyack - 4th Floor 31 31

Glenmore Park 167 162 97%

Target 50 85%

Glenmore Park - 1 East 58 57

Glenmore Park - 1 West 41 38

Glenmore Park - 2 East 40 39

Glenmore Park - 2 West 18 18

Glenmore Park - 2 South 7 7

Glenmore Park - Day Hospital 3 3

Rouleau Manor 24 24 100%

Target 25 85%

Rouleau Manor 24 24

Sarcee 17 16 94%

Target 50 85%

Sarcee - Unit 1 13 12

Sarcee - Unit 2 0 0

Sarcee - Unit 3 4 4

Sarcee - Hospice 0 0

Signal Pointe 28 28 100%

Target 25 85%

Signal Pointe 28 28

Royal Park 32 32 100%

Target 12.5 85%

Royal Park 32 32

Total 663 652 98%

Q 3 October - December 2016

Hand Hygiene Observations Quarterly Report

6

Goal Area:



12 / 13 13 / 14 14 / 15 15 / 16 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Immunization Rate (percentage) 92% 94% 94% 88% 87%Target (percentage) 95% 95% 95% 95%Sample Size 1032 904 1008 1046

Seasonal Influenza Immunization (LTC) Rates


Rates of Seasonal Influenza Immunization (LTC)

Definition: Percentage of LTC residents immunized for influenza.

Data is collected annually as of reporting date specified by Alberta Health Services

2016/17

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers of Long-Term Care Units

Analysis: Q3

Only one site met the 95% target rate set by AHS for client influenza immunization – Sarcee

Target rates are only set for Long Term Care and DAL

Rate is 1% lower than last year. 87% this year, 88% last year for all long term care/DAL sites


Data Source: Immunization rates reported annually in December to Alberta Health Services.

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

12 / 13 13 / 14 14 / 15 15 / 16 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2016/17

Immunization Rate (percentage)

7

Goal Area:



Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Discharge percentage 17.0% 16.2% 17.7% 18.5% 14.3% 14.9% 16.9% 0.0%

Benchmark (percentage) 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5%

Discharges to Acute Care as Percentage of Beds


Discharges and Transfers to Acute Care as Percentage of Beds

Definition: Number of discharges to acute care, as a percentage of beds. For LTC only, includes unscheduled

emergency visits to hospital

Why it's important: Carewest strives to minimize secondary complications that require additional resources.

Limitations A % of transfers to acute will be necessary to achieve optimal health for clients whose health may

be improved with additional resources. Some transfers may be scheduled (e.g. surgeries).

2015/16 2016/17

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers of Care Units across Carewest, supported by

Analysis: Note: Scheduled appts and surgeries not included in Fiscal 16/17. Top 5 reasons for transfer to

acute (TLOH) were: Pneumonia (13); Fall - Rule out fracture (12) Urosepsis (12) Cardiac conditions (6);

Respiratory conditions (6)


Data Source: Goldcare data reported by Information Management.

0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%

10.0%12.0%14.0%16.0%18.0%20.0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Discharge percentage Benchmark (percentage)

8

Facility Unit Beds

QI Q2 Q3 Q4

Sarcee 251 Medically Complex 46 7 8 8Sarcee 258 Medically Complex 39 4 4 9Sarcee RCTP RCTP 35 11 10 16Sarcee Hospice Hospice 15 0 0 0

135 22 22 33 0

Glenmore 340 MSK 34 7 9 9Glenmore 1E Enhanced RCTP 34 11 10 11Glenmore 352 RCTP 2 West 30 16 8 11Glenmore 354 RCTP 2 East 29 6 8 10Glenmore GMH Mental Health 20 3 5 5

147 43 40 46 0

Boyack 453 Cognitively Complex 75 4 1 4Boyack 455 Cognitively Complex 71 2 6 6Boyack 457 Medically Complex 75 5 11 5

221 11 18 15 0

Fanning 651 1 West - EQuaL 49 10 3 4Fanning 652 1 East - EQuaL 49 5 4 3Fanning 656 3 East - EQuaL 39 11 12 7Fanning 659 Renal Unit 54 22 23 37Fanning RCTP RCTP 49 13 16 20Fanning 658 Neuro Rehab 49 6 8 3

289 67 66 74 0

Belcher 2nd floor Medically Complex 85 6 7 14Belcher 1st floor Cognitively Complex 90 8 5 9Belcher DAL DAL 30 1 8 9

205 15 20 32 0

Garrison 1st floor Equal 37 1 0 4Garrison 2nd Floor Equal 53 10 8 4Garrison 3rd Floor Medically Complex 55 3 0 5Garrison 4th Floor Medically Complex 55 1 4 1

200 15 12 14 0

Royal Park R50 Medically Complex 50 9 8 4Signal Pointe Sxxx Cognitively Complex 54 8 7 4Nickle House N10 10 3 3 1

114 20 18 9 0

Rouleau Manor Ground Cognitively Complex 17 1 3 1Rouleau Manor Main Cognitively Complex 19 3 5 3Rouleau Manor 2nd Cognitively Complex 14 0 2 1Rouleau Manor 3rd Cognitively Complex 14 2 0 6Rouleau Manor 4th Cognitively Complex 13 0 1 1

77 6 11 12 01,388 199 207 235 0

Total Beds 138814.3% 14.9% 16.9% 0%

Fiscal 16/17 CalculationsTLOH & *discharges to acute LTC 122 122 140 0Discharges to acute care R&R 73 74 85 0

DC to acute care (Hospice) TLOH

& *discharges to acute (DAL)

COM 4 11 10 0

Total 199 207 235 0*discharge not counted if they were discharged as a result of death in acute (TLOH)*discharge counted if they were true discharge to acute (no TLOH)

Discharges & TLOH to Acute Care

Reported from Goldcare 2017/Jan/039

Q3 16/17 Reason for Hospital Leave

(As reported in Goldcare)

Boyack Col Bel (DAL)

Col Bel Fanning Garrison Nickle

House

Rouleau Royal

Park

Sarcee Signal

Pointe

Total

Pneumonia 2 1 5 1 4 13Fall - Rule out fracture 2 3 3 1 2 1 12Urosepsis 2 1 4 2 1 1 1 12Cardiac conditions 1 4 1 6Respiratory conditions 1 1 4 6Behaviour assessment 1 1 2 1 5Decreased level of consciousness 1 1 3 5Gastrointestinal bleed 1 1 2 1 5Abdominal pain 1 2 1 4Seizure 2 1 1 4Declining status 3 3Diarrhea 1 1 1 3Fall - Rule out intracranial bleed 2 1 3Fractures (not identified as related to fall) 2 1 3Hematuria 2 1 3Pain 1 2 3Reason not stated 2 1 3Urinary tract infection 1 1 1 3Cerebrovascular accident 1 1 2Deep vein thrombosis 1 1 2Emesis 1 1 2Fever 2 2Hypoglycemia 2 2Hypotensive 2 2Hypoxia 1 1 2Low O2 sats 1 1 2Sepsis 1 1 2Shortness of breath 2 2Unresponsive 1 1 2Abnormal labs 1 1Back pain 1 1Blood clot in neprostomy bag 1 1Bleeding from mouth 1 1Bleeding stoma 1 1Calciphylaxis 1 1Car accident with brain injury 1 1Choking 1 1Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 1 1Client called 911 herself 1 1Congestive heart failure 1 1Dehydration 1 1Delirium 1 1Difficulty swallowing 1 1Edema 1 1Elevated sodium 1 1Elevated temperature 1 1Gangrene infection 1 1Gout 1 1Hip pain 1 1Hypercalcemia 1 1Influenza 1 1Intoxicated 1 1Ketoacidosis 1 1Laceration 1 1Mental distress 1 1Pancreatic lesions 1 1Pneumosepsis 1 1

Information Management Goldcare Export 2017/Jan/0310

Goal Area:



2015/16 2016/17Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Achievement Rate (percentage) 94% 70% 59% 74%Target (percentage) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Continuing Care Health Service Standards Met



Definition: Percentage of Standards met (aggregate for all Carewest sites).

Bi-Annual audit

Why it's important: Carewest strives to meet the high standards demonstrating quality of care.

Limitations The Standards are in transition and have changing auditors. Some standards are more applicable to residential

settings but are applied to day service areas.

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers for Continuing Care Units

CB SL4 and Nickle House were audited this quarter. Both sites were compliant for 14/19 standards but each site was

compliant with slightly different standards. Actions plans have been submitted and approved.

Plan for Improvement/Timelines:

All action plans for LTC and DAL have bee successfully submitted with no outstanding compliance issues.

The Clinical Standards Committee will broaden to include all areas audited, not just LTC and is facilitating attention to ongoing

sustainability as well as preparation and response to specific audits.

Data Source: Audit reports from Alberta Health Services

Analysis: Q3

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Achievement Rate (percentage) Target (percentage)

11


DAL / SL

Site %

Nickle House 14 / 19 74%Colonel Belcher DAL 14 / 19 74%

CAREWEST 28 / 38 74%

Fully Met Standards Comment

12

Goal Area:



Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Achievement Rate (percentage) 76.7% 100%Target (percentage) 100% 100%

Accommodations Standards Met


Accommodations Standards Met

Definition: Percentage of Standards met (aggregate for all Carewest sites).

Annual audit

Why it's important: Carewest strives to meet the high standards demonstrating quality of care environments

Limitations The audit is based on one day of observation for each site.

2015/16 2016/17

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers of Long-Term Care and Supportive Living Units

Analysis: Q3


Data Source: Audit reports from Alberta Health

All Carewest sites successfully met all 30 standards under the 2016 Long Term Care Accommodation Audit. The Licensor was

impressed with the consistent effort from staff to keep the sites safe and pleasant for the residents. The Licensor commented

on the organization of the site evidence binders, that Carewest was prepared for this audit and that she appreciated the

preparation model as it helped the audit run smoothly.

00.20.40.60.8

11.2

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Achievement Rate (percentage)

13

Goal Area:

• Satisfied Clients □ • Progressive Work Environment □

• Targeted Service Development ■ • Cost Effective Organization □

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Utilization Rate (percentage) 97.8% 98.1% 98.3% 98.5% 98.4% 98.6% 98.5% 0.0%Target (percentage) 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0%

2016/17


Long-Term Care/SL4 Utilization Rate

Long-Term Care/SL4 Utilization Rate

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers of Long-Term Care and SL4 sites.

Definition: Total LTC,Respite and SL4 bed days occupied to total number of bed days per quarter.

Analysis: Utilization rate has had minimal overall change despite the number of outbreaks and perceived impact of changes

in FALO policy

Plan for Improvement/Timelines: (required where target is not achieved) Indicator should be reviewed for level of

sensitivity to real change on units and related causes


Why It's Important Carewest is required to achieve a target occupancy to support system capacity needs. Overall capacity

optimizes use of resources and impacts funding models in LTC.

Limitations: Carewest cannot fully impact referral matches with site resources. The FALO policy has some impact as well.

2015/16

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Utilization Rate (percentage) Target (percentage)

14

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1st Q 16/17 2nd Q 16/17 3rd Q 16/17 4th Q 16/17LTC/SL4 Utilization

Fanning # Beds

Possible Bed

Days Occupied # Beds

Possible Bed


Possible Bed


Possible

Bed Days OccupiedFanning 1 East 98.0% 97.7% 98.6% 49 4,459 4,371 49 4,508 4,404 49 4,508 4,445 49 4,410 1,462Fanning 1 West 96.2% 98.5% 97.6% 49 4,459 4,290 49 4,508 4,441 49 4,508 4,398 49 4,410 1,490Fanning 3 East 99.6% 96.3% 97.3% 39 3,549 3,536 39 3,588 3,455 39 3,128 3,043 39 3,060 990Fanning CCC 99.5% 100.2% 98.6% 54 4,914 4,889 54 4,968 4,979 54 5,428 5,354 54 5,310 1,799

98.3% 98.3% 98.1% 33.4% 191 17381 17086 191 17572 17,279 191 17572 17240 191 17190 5741SarceeUnit 1 99.8% 99.4% 99.0% 46 4,186 4,176 46 4,232 4,208 46 4,232 4,190 46 4,140 1,401Unit 3 98.3% 99.4% 99.1% 39 3,549 3,489 39 3,588 3,565 39 3,588 3,554 39 3,510 1,189

99.1% 99.4% 99.0% 33.9% 85 7735 7665 85 7820 7,773 85 7820 7,744 85 7650 2590GarrisonGarrsion 1 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 37 3,367 3,367 37 3,404 3,404 37 3,404 3,365 37 3,330 1,147Garrison 2 99.3% 99.7% 99.2% 53 4,823 4,787 53 4,876 4,859 53 4,876 4,837 53 4,770 1,610Garrison 3 98.9% 99.9% 98.0% 55 5,005 4,952 55 5,060 5,055 55 5,060 4,957 55 4,950 1,684Garrison 4 99.7% 99.2% 98.1% 55 5,005 4,992 55 5,060 5,021 55 5,060 4,963 55 4,950 1,674

99.4% 99.7% 98.5% 34.0% 200 18200 18098 200 18400 18339 200 18,400 18,122 200 18000 6115Rouleau ManorGround 96.6% 93.2% 98.1% 17 1,547 1,495 17 1,564 1,458 17 1,564 1,535 17 1,530 1,535Main 98.6% 96.6% 99.8% 19 1,729 1,704 19 1,748 1,689 19 1,748 1,744 19 1,710 1,7442nd Floor 100.0% 94.5% 99.0% 14 1,274 1,274 14 1,288 1,217 14 1,288 1,275 14 1,260 1,2753rd Floor 100.0% 95.7% 97.7% 14 1,274 1,274 14 1,288 1,232 14 1,288 1,258 14 1,260 1,2584th Floor 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 13 1,183 1,183 13 1,196 1,196 13 1,196 1,193 13 1,170 1,193

98.9% 95.9% 98.9% 101.1% 77 7,007 6,930 77 7084 6792 77 7084 7005 77 6,930 7,005Royal Park 99.3% 99.6% 98.6% 34.2% 50 4,550 4,518 50 4,600 4,581 50 4,600 4,537 50 4,500 1,539

50 4,600 4,565 50Signal Pointe 99.7% 99.7% 99.8% 34.1% 54 4,914 4,898 54 4,968 4,953 54 4,968 4,958 54 4,860 1,659

` 4,968 4,407 `Boyack G Boyack 2 97.4% 99.4% 98.4% 75 6,825 6,648 75 6,900 6,862 75 6,900 6,790 75 6,750 2,281G Boyack 3 96.7% 98.6% 96.8% 71 6,461 6,249 71 6,532 6,441 71 6,532 6,322 71 6,390 2,126G Boyack 4 97.1% 99.2% 97.4% 75 6,825 6,625 75 6,900 6,845 75 6,900 6,722 75 6,750 2,302

97.1% 99.1% 97.6% 33.7% 221 20111 19522 221 20332 20148 221 20,332 19,834 221 19890 6709Colonel BelcherCol Belcher1 98.2% 98.9% 97.5% 90 8,190 8,044 90 8,280 8,185 90 8,280 8,071 90 8,100 2,700Col Belcher2 99.0% 98.7% 96.8% 85 7,735 7,661 85 7,820 7,719 85 7,820 7,571 85 7,650 2,584

98.6% 98.8% 97.2% 33.5% 175 15925 15705 175 16100 15904 175 16100 15642 175 15750 5284SL4Colonel Belcher DAL 94.1% 98.2% 98.7% 33.4% 30 2,730 2,568 30 2,760 2,711 30 2,760 2,725 30 2,700 902Nickle House 96.9% 100.0% 98.6% 10 910 882 10 920 920 10 920 907 10 900 310

Occupancy (by Quarter) 98.4% 98.9% 98.2% 38.8% 1093 99,463 97,872 1093 100,556 99,400 1093 100,556 98,714 1093 183780 71298Rolling Average (Current Fiscal Yr) n/a 98.6% 98.5%Rolling Average Calculations 97872/99463 200,019 197,272 300,575 295,986 484,355 367,284

2/16/2017 Carewest Balanced Scorecard 2016/17 Updated 2016/Aug/08

15

Goal Area:



Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Utilization Rate (percentage) 87.0% 83.6% 84.4% 83.0% 91.1% 89.0% 89.4% 75.2%Benchmark (percentage) 95% 95% 95% 95% 85% 85% 85% 85%

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers of Chronic Complex Care and Hospice Units, working with

AHS Transition Services.

Analysis: Slight increase in occupancy. New benchmark set by Hospice Network (85%)



Hospice Utilization Rate


Hospice Utilization Rate

Definition: Total Hospice bed days occupied to total number of bed days per quarter.

2015/16 2016/17

76.0%78.0%80.0%82.0%84.0%86.0%88.0%90.0%92.0%94.0%96.0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2015/16 2016/17

Utilization Rate (percentage) Benchmark (percentage)

16

CCC & Hospice Utilization

Unit Specific 1st Q 16/17 2nd Q 16/17 3rd Q 16/17 4th Q 16/17

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 # Beds Bed Days Occupied Bed Days Occupied Bed Days Occupied Bed Days OccupiedSarcee Hospice 91.1% 87.0% 90.2% 31.9% 15 1,365 1,243 1,380 1,201 1,380 1,245 1,350 430

Rolling Average (Current Fiscal Yr) n/a 89.0% 89.4% 75.2% 2,745 2,444 4,125 3,689 5,475 4,119Occupancy Calculations 1243/1365

Updated 2016/May/0217

Goal Area:



Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Utilization Rate (percentage) 100.1% 99.8% 99.5% 99.1% 97.0% 97.7% 98.2% 82.5%Benchmark (percentage) 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers of the Rehabilitation & Recovery Programs.

Analysis: Slight increase in occupancy and returning to above target. Prinary driver of change is increased occupancy of Neuro

Rehabiltiation unit but this is balanced by a slight decrease in occupancy at GMP RCTP 2East & 2 West.



Rehabilitation & Recovery Utilization Rate


Rehabilitation & Recovery Utilization Rate

Definition: Total R&R bed days occupied to total number of bed days per quarter.

2015/16 2016/17

95.0%95.5%96.0%96.5%97.0%97.5%98.0%98.5%99.0%99.5%

100.0%100.5%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Utilization Rate (percentage) Benchmark (percentage)

18

Rehabilitation and Recovery Utilization Rate

Unit Specific 1st Q 16/17 2nd Q 16/17 3rd Q 16/17 4th Q 16/17

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 # Beds Bed Days Occupied Bed Days Occupied Bed Days Occupied Bed Days Occupied

GMP-MSK 99.3% 100.0% 101.0% 34.9% 34 3,094 3,071 3,128 3,128 3,128 3,159 3,060 1,069

GMP- 1E RCTP 104.1% 104.6% 105.2% 36.1% 34 3,094 3,222 3,128 3,271 3,128 3,290 3,060 1,106

GMP- 2W RCTP 97.8% 97.6% 95.8% 33.9% 30 2,730 2,670 2,760 2,695 2,760 2,643 2,700 915

GMP-2E RCTP 97.2% 97.3% 94.3% 33.7% 29 2,639 2,565 2,668 2,596 2,668 2,516 2,610 880

GMP- GMH 99.6% 98.6% 98.2% 34.0% 20 1,820 1,813 1,840 1,814 1,840 1,806 1,800 612

Sarcee RCTP 99.1% 99.6% 99.4% 34.9% 35 3,185 3,156 3,220 3,207 3,220 3,201 3,150 1,100

Fanning RCTP 97.5% 99.8% 98.0% 34.5% 49 4,459 4,347 4,508 4,500 4,508 4,420 4,410 1,521

Fanning Neuro 86.8% 92.0% 99.7% 33.9% 49 4,459 3,871 4,508 4,148 4,508 4,494 4,410 1,496

Occupancy (by Quarter) 97.0% 98.4% 99.1% 34.5% 280 25,480 24,715 25,760 25,359 25,760 25,529 25200 8699Rolling Average (Current Fiscal Yr) n/a 97.7% 98.2% 82.5% 51,240 50,074 77,000 75,603 102,200 84,302

Occupancy Calculations 97.0%

Updated 2016/May/03

19

Goal Area:



Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Utilization Rate (percentage) 95.4% 92.3% 92.4% 92.5% 91.2% 89.1% 91.2% 0.0%Target (percentage) 90% 90% 90% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers in Community Programs.

Analysis: Increase in occupancy across most programs with exception of ADP Belcher and YADS. Still awaiting revised

denominator for Seating Clinic that resulted from process efficiencies to schedule more clients per quarter.

Plan for Improvement/Timelines: (required where target is not achieved) ADP manager continues to review waitlist and

referral trends with AHS. Day Hospital increased occupancy has increased due to return in overbooking practices to ensure

spaces are filled.


Community Services Utilization Rate


Community Services Utilization Rate

Definition: Average number of days filled to days available for community services.

2015/16 2016/17

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Utilization Rate (percentage) Target (percentage)

20

Community Services

Unit Specific

Fiscal 16/17 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Day Hospital (Regular Program) 83.3 82.6 91.3Day Hospital (Dementia) 83.2 84.0 96.7ASDP -SP 77.9 78.3 87.9ASDP-CB 91.0 91.4 88.7YADS 91.3 85.7 85.3Seating Clinic 130.3 95.9 126.2C3 Sarcee 90.3 90.8 96.3C3 Beddington 75.1 75.5 84.1OSI 98.5 98.5 101.0

Average (By Quarter) 91.2% 87.0% 95.3%Rolling Average (Current Fiscal Yr) n/a 89.1% 91.2%

Previous Fiscal Year

Fiscal 15/16 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Day Hospital (Regular Program) 75.0 85.6 86.0Day Hospital (Dementia) 87.0 77.0 93.2 93.2ASDP -SP 93.9 92.5 83.6 84.4ASDP-CB 96.7 97.4 95.4 94.6YADS 97.1 96.5 96.2 94.4Seating Clinic 117.2 104.8 124.1 130.3C3 Sarcee 101.1 98.9 95.6 95.6C3 Beddington 74.4 63.0 66.0 67.0OSI (Demoninator = 110) 107.6 96.9 93.9 90.9

Average (By Quarter) 95.4% 89.1% 92.6% 93.0%Rolling Average (Current Fiscal Yr) n/a 92.3% 92.4% 92.5%

21

Goal Area:

• Satisfied Clients □ • Progressive Work Environment ■


2015/16 2016/17Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Completion Rate (percentage) 89% 86% 87% 86% 83% 83% 79%Target (percentage) 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Annual Performance Appraisal Completion Rate


Annual Performance Appraisal Completion Rate

Definition: Average number of Performance Appraisals (PA) (cumulative to date) completed to average number due

(cumulative year to date).

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers in all Programs and Service areas.


Data Source: Human Resources

Analysis: Q3

A number of Managers moved into new roles this quarter, we should expect to see this number to increase as they become

familiar with their new reports. Continued support given to Directors and Managers by Human Resources to inform and

encourage performance appraisal (PA) completion to target completion level of 90%. Performance Management orientation

is given to all new Managers/Directors and is available as a refresher for any existing Managers/Directors.

Administrative networking group continues to provide support to Managers (CSM's & Food Services) in completing PA's.

Admin Support at the site will prepare PA packages at the beginning of every month, the package will include; The most

current PA form, Education history, Education deficiency lists, ESP and PeopleSoft attendance reports. The initative was put in

place to eliminate administration work required to allow Managers to focus on completing quality PA's for their employees.

72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Completion Rate (percentage) Target (percentage)

22

MonthTotal # of PA's

completed

Total # of employees

requiring a PA

% of PA's completed

on time

Cumulative

Fiscal Yr

Number of

Appraisals

Complete Year to

Date

Number of

Appraisals Due

Year to Date

% Completed

As of May 1, 2015 1928 2138 90.18%

As of June 1, 2015 1886 2138 88.21%

As of July 1, 2015 1884 2151 87.59%

As of August 1, 2015 1842 2147 85.79%

As of September 1, 2015 1787 2131 83.86%

As of October 1, 2015 1880 2142 87.77%

As of November 1, 2015 1852 2139 86.58%

As of December 1, 2015 1849 2141 86.36%

As of January 1, 2016 1860 2119 87.78%

As of February 1, 2016 1854 2146 86.39%

As of March 1, 2016 1840 2145 85.78%

As of April 1, 2016 1833 2139 85.69%

As of May 1, 2016 1797 2142 83.89%

As of June 1, 2016 1783 2165 82.36%

As of July 1, 2016 1801 2176 82.77%

As of August 1, 2016 1803 2181 82.67%

As of September 1, 2016 1819 2191 83.02%

As of October 1, 2016 1786 2183 81.81%

As of November 1, 2016 1754 2181 80.42%

As of December 1, 2016 1744 2194 79.49%

As of January 1, 2017 1722 2197 78.38%

As of February 1, 2017As of March 1, 2017As of April 1, 2017As of May 1, 2017As of June 1, 2017As of July 1, 2017As of August 1, 2017As of September 1, 2017As of October 1, 2017As of November 1, 2017As of December 1, 2017As of January 1, 2018As of February 1, 2018As of March 1, 2018As of April 1, 2018As of May 1, 2018As of June 1, 2018As of July 1, 2018As of August 1, 2018As of September 1, 2018As of October 1, 2018As of November 1, 2018As of December 1, 2018As of January 1, 2019As of February 1, 2019As of March 1, 2019As of April 1, 2019

Q3 Cumulative 2016/2019 0 0 #DIV/0!

Year End2016/2019 0 0 #DIV/0!

Q1 2016/2019 0 0 #DIV/0!

Q2 - Cumulative 2016/2019

0 0 #DIV/0!

Q3 Cumulative 2016/2018 0 0 #DIV/0!

Year End2016/2018 0 0 #DIV/0!

Q1 2016/2018 0 0 #DIV/0!


0 0 #DIV/0!

83%

1740 2191 79%

Monthly Personal Engagement & Development Plan Statistics

1794 2161 83%

1842 2143 86%

Q1 2016/2017

#DIV/0!

Q12015/2016 1900 2142 89%

Q2 Cumulative 2015/2016 1836 2140 86%

Q3 Cumulative 2015/2016 1854 2133 87%

Year End2015/2016

1803 2185

Year End2016/2017


Q3 Cumulative 2016/2017

0 0

23

Goal Area:



Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Turnover Rate (percentage) 4.9% 5.2% 5.4% 5.8% 5.2% 5.4% 5.3%Benchmark (percentage) 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%

Plan for

Improvement/Timelines:

Staff Commitment - Annualized Turnover Rate


Staff Commitment - Annualized Turnover Rate

Definition: Total voluntary and involuntary terminations to total number of employees (Includes FT, PT and Temp).

2015/16 2016/17

Accountability for Analysis and Action: HR in consultation with Site Directors and Managers

Our turnover rate remains very good, well below the 8% target, with several sites showing improvement over this past quarter.

Two sites above the target (Sarcee and Beddington) had Management turnover this past year, accounting for the increase.

Data Source: Human Resources.

Analysis: Q3

0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Turnover Rate (percentage) Benchmark (percentage)

24

Q3 Site Breakdown (Full time- Part time)

SiteTotal # Regular

Employees/Sites

Total # Regular Separations for the

12 month period ending/Site Percentages

Market Mall 20 3 15.00%

Beddington 46 5 10.87%

Colonel Belcher 240 2 0.83%

Fanning Centre 536 26 4.85%

Garrison Green 220 10 4.55%

George Boyack 211 7 3.32%

Glenmore Park 290 12 4.14%

Nickle House 23 2 8.70%

Rouleau Manor 92 9 9.78%

Royal Park 52 2 3.85%

Sarcee 221 22 9.95%

Signal Pointe 90 4 4.44%

Southport 71 7 9.86%

25

Goal Area:



Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Vacancy Rate (percentage) 2.20% 2.30% 2.40% 2.30% 2.10% 2.04% 0.96%Target (percentage) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%


Improved results can be attributed to more focused efforts with the recruitment team to shorten recruitment turnaround

time and achieve a heigher volume of successful new hires.


Data Source: Human Resources Database

Analysis: Q3

Vacancy


Vacancy

Definition: Total number regular vacant lines greater than .3 FTE to Total number of regular lines( vacant and filled ) greater

than .3 FTE.

2015/16 2016/17

0.00%0.50%1.00%1.50%2.00%2.50%3.00%3.50%4.00%4.50%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Vacancy Rate (percentage) Target (percentage)

26

Goal Area:



Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Absentieeism (percentage) 44% 38% 41% 40% 42% 44% 38%Target (percentage)

Analysis: Q3

2015/16 2016/17


Absenteeism - Sick Rate

Slight increase in total paid sick time is not unexpected. Carewest experienced a hard hitting early influenza season with 11

outbreaks across several sites. This started before immunization and affected large numbers of staff. Even after immunization, there

has been an influenza like virus making the rounds of all sites resulting in a higher than usual volume of sick calls.


Data Source: Human Resources Database


Absenteeism - Sick Rate

Definition: total # of sick hours for Carewest in the quarter/Total paid sick hours

Limitations affected by seasonal factors such a influenza so will not do as a rolling average. Also captures total number but not

length of incident nor multiple incidents by the same employee

Why it's important: Sick leave affects the ability to provide continuity of care for clients and has a significant financial

impact on the organization.

34%36%38%40%42%44%46%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Absenteeism (percentage)

27

T19 hours Paid Sick Hours % to Total Sick Hours

2016-2017

Q1 14,669 35,270 42%Q2 16,005 36,075 44%Q3 15,708 41,421 38%Q4

30,674 71,345 43%

FY 2015-2016

Q1 16,333 36,992 44%Q2 12,637 32,897 38%Q3 15,748 38,360 41%Q4 14,844 36,661 40%

59,562 144,910 41%

FY 2014-2015

Q1 13,108 34,135 38%Q2 11,714 31,679 37%Q3 16,670 40,359 41%Q4 14,139 39,155 36%

55,631 145,328 38%

28

Goal Area:



2015/16 2016/17Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Injury Rate (percentage) 0.7% 0.6% 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.7%Target(percentage) 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers, in consultation with EH&S.

Analysis: Q3

Needlestick injuries decreased from 7 to zero this quarter as a likely result of the new safety engineered insulin pens that are now in

use. This is a fantastic improvement and speaks to the power of engineering controls as a powerful way to reduce injuries.

Investigation training took place on December 15th, for nine Managers, Team Leaders and Clinical Support Coordinators.

Safety Strategies Committee met on November 16th and discussed many client/staff safety related topics including: bariatric

equipment, safety inspections, client Transfer assessment and algorithm, sling inventory, Buddy Checklist, slider sheets, investigation

forms and the removal of ceiling lifts from education rooms. Many of these issues require multi-stakeholder involvement and have

complex implementation steps.

Data Source: Employee Health & Safety (from Risk Management Database) reported quarterly.

Lost time (LT) injuries increased in Q3 from 10 LT injuries (Q1 and Q2) to 19 LT injuries (0.7%). The increase can be attributed to a

greater number of client repositioning and transfer incidents. The injury breakdown for Q3: 8 lifting/transferring, 1 resident/client

care, 3 resident aggression, 3 slip/trip/fall/ 2 repetitive injuries, and 2 “other”.

No Time Loss claims decreased from to 26 in Q2 to 11 in Q3. Modified duties were required in 3 NTL claims. The breakdown is as

follows: 4 transfer/repositioning, 1 resident care, 1 repetitive injury, 1 aggression and 3 “other”.

Lost time injuries compared to the same quarter last year showed an increase from 10 to 19. Total WCB claims including NTL for the

same quarter in 2015 were 32 as compared to 2016 which were 30.

Plan for Improvement/Timelines:

Lost Time Claim Frequency


Lost Time Claim Frequency

Definition: Total number of staff injuries (level 3 and 4) resulting in lost time to total number of staff (FT, PT and Casual)

0.0%0.1%0.2%0.3%0.4%0.5%0.6%0.7%0.8%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Injury Rate (percentage) Target(percentage)

29

Lost Times Claims

Fiscal Fiscal

16/17 16/171stQ 2728 10 0.4% 2nd Q 2735 10 0.4%

Lost Time Claim Frequency Detail Lost Time Claim Frequency Detail

Apr: LT Claims = 3 Jul: LT Claims = 1May: LT Claims = 3 Aug: LT Claims = 8Jun: LT Claims = 4 Sep: LT Claims = 1

1st Q Time Loss No Time

Loss

Total

Claims

2nd Q Time Loss No Time

Loss

Total

Claims

Beddington (C3) 0 0 0 Beddington

(C3)

1 1 2

Belcher 1 2 3 Belcher 2 1 3

Fanning 4 7 11 Fanning 2 11 13

Garrison Green 0 2 2 Garrison

Green

0 0 0

George Boyack 2 1 3 George

Boyack

2 4 6

Glenmore 1 4 5 Glenmore 1 2 3

Rouleau 0 3 3 Rouleau 0 2 2

Royal Park 0 0 0 Royal Park 0 0 0

Sarcee 2 1 3 Sarcee 1 2 3

Signal Pointe 0 0 0 Signal Pointe 1 3 4

Admin 0 0 0 Admin 0 0 0

Total 10 20 30 OSI 0 0 0

Total 10 26 36

Fiscal Fiscal

16/17 16/173rd Q 2736 19 0.7% 4th Q #DIV/0!

Lost Time Claim Frequency Detail Lost Time Claim Frequency Detail

Oct: LT claims = 8 Jan: LT claims =Nov: LT claims = 2 Feb: LT claims = Dec: LT claims = 9 Mar: LT claims =

Q4

3rd Q Time Loss No Time

Loss

Total

Claims

4th Q Time Loss No Time

Loss

Total

Claims

Beddington (C3) 0 0 0 Beddington

(C3)

Belcher 1 2 3 Belcher

Fanning 8 4 12 Fanning

Garrison Green 3 2 5

Garrison

Green

George Boyack 1 0 1 George

Boyack

Glenmore 0 2 2 Glenmore

Rouleau 1 0 1 Rouleau

Royal Park 1 0 1 Royal Park

Sarcee 3 0 3 Sarcee

Signal Pointe 1 1 2 Signal Pointe

Nickle House 0 0 0 Nickle House

OSI 0 0 0 OSI

Admin 0 0 0 Admin

Total 19 11 30 Total 0 0 0

#EMPLOYEES # Lost

Time

%

#EMPLOYEES # Lost

Time

%#EMPLOYEES # Lost

Time

%

#EMPLOYEES # Lost

Time

%

Risk Management DatabaseR/C with Employee H S

Updated 2016/Oct/2730

Goal Area:



Llimitation: dependent on number of incidents reported - especially Type 4

2015/16 2016/17Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Aggressive incidents (percentage) 2.4% 3.2% 2.1% 1.8% 2.3% 2.0% 1.2%Benchmark (percentage) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Aggression in the Workplace


Aggression in the Workplace

Definition: Number of reported incidents to to total number of staff (FT, PT and Casual)

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Site Directors and Managers.

Analysis: Q3Slight overall decrease in reported incidents, driven primarily by reduced reported incidents of aggression directed at staff by clients. Fanning, Belcher and Rouleau have the majority of reported incidents, related to the admitted population.

Plan for Improvement/Timelines: Recommend review of SCI training at these sites (Belcher has not been on the high priority list but should be included for more regular review). Work in progress to update Supportive Pathways training at this site as well. May need to review responsive behaviours component of EQuaL training to address Fanning results as well.

Data Source: Risk Management database, UOR -staff-staff, Human Resources reports

0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

31

Type 1 Property Damage

Type 2 Client/Family directed at

Staff

Type 3 Staff to Staff

Type 4 Domesti

c Violence

Total Type 1 Property Damage

Type 2 Client/Fa

mily directed at Staff


Type 4 Domestic Violence

Total

Beddington 0 0 0 0 0 Beddington 0 0 0 0 0George Boyack 0 1 0 0 1 George Boyack 0 2 0 0 2Colonel Belcher 0 12 0 0 12 Colonel Belcher 0 10 0 0 10Fanning 0 18 0 0 18 Fanning 1 17 0 0 18Garrison Green 0 2 1 0 3 Garrison Green 0 2 0 0 2Glenmore Park 1 3 0 0 4 Glenmore Park 0 3 1 0 4Market Mall 0 0 0 0 0 Market Mall 0 0 0 0 0Nickle House 0 0 0 0 0 Nickle House 0 0 0 0 0Rouleau Manor 0 9 0 0 9 Rouleau Manor 0 4 0 0 4Royal Park 0 1 0 0 1 Royal Park 0 0 0 0 0Sarcee 0 6 1 0 7 Sarcee 0 8 1 0 9Signal Pointe 0 9 0 0 9 Signal Pointe 0 6 0 0 6Southport 0 0 0 0 0 Southport 0 0 0 0 0Carewest Total 1 61 2 0 64 Carewest Total 1 52 2 0 55Employees = 2728 Employees = 2735

Col Bel - Initiated by 7 different clients (1 client with 4 incidents, 1 client with 2 incidents) Col Bel - Initiated by 6 different clients (1 client with 3 incidents, 2 clients with 2 incidents each)

Fanning - Initiated by 11 different clients (1 client 5 incidents 3 East; 1 client 4 incidents 1 East) Fanning - Initiated by 12 different clients (1 client 4 incidents 1 East); 1 client 3 incidents 1 West)

Garrison Green - Initiated by 1 client Glenmore Park - 1 Client and 2 Family to Employee incidents

Glenmore Park - 2 incidents initiated by same family member (2 West RCTP) Sarcee - Initiated by 6 different clients. (2 clients with 2 incidents each (1st and 3rd Floors))

Rouleau Manor - Initiated by 7 different clients (1 client with 3 incidents 3rd Floor) Signal Pointe - Initiated by 2 different clients (1 client with 6 incidents)

Sarcee - Initiated by 5 different clients. 1 client with 2 incidents 1st Floor

Signal Pointe - Initiated by 6 different clients (1 client with 3 incidents, 1 client with 2 incidents)


Type 2 Client/Family directed at Staff



Total Type 1 Property Damage

Type 2 Client/Family directed at Staff



Total

Beddington 0 0 0 0 0 Beddington 0George Boyack 0 4 0 0 4 George Boyack 0Colonel Belcher 0 6 0 0 6 Colonel Belcher 0Fanning 0 12 1 0 13 Fanning 0Garrison Green 0 1 0 0 1 Garrison Green 0Glenmore Park 0 1 0 0 1 Glenmore Park 0Market Mall 0 0 0 0 0 Market Mall 0Nickle House 0 0 0 0 0 Nickle House 0Rouleau Manor 0 6 0 0 6 Rouleau Manor 0Royal Park 0 0 0 0 0 Royal Park 0Sarcee 0 1 0 0 1 Sarcee 0Signal Pointe 0 2 0 0 2 Signal Pointe 0Southport 0 0 0 0 0 Southport 0Carewest Total 0 33 1 0 34 Carewest Total 0 0 0 0 0Employees = 2736 Employees =

Fanning - Initiated by 10 different clients (1 client 2 incidents 3 East); 1 West visitor incident

Garrison Green - Initiated by 3 clients + 1 visitor incident

Rouleau Manor - Initiated by 3 different clients (1 client with 4 incidents 2nd Floor)

Sarcee - Initiated by 4 different clients. 1 Hospice family incident

4th Q 15/16 - Aggression in the Workplace


Type 2 Client/Family directed at

Staff


Type 4 Domesti

c Violence Total

Beddington 0 0 0 0 0George Boyack 0 2 0 0 2Colonel Belcher 0 15 0 0 15Fanning 0 6 0 0 6Garrison Green 0 0 0 0 0Glenmore Park 0 0 0 0 0Market Mall 0 0 0 0 0Nickle House 0 0 0 0 0Rouleau Manor 0 15 0 0 15Royal Park 0 0 0 0 0Sarcee 0 1 0 0 1Signal Pointe 0 11 0 0 11Southport 0 0 0 0 0Carewest Total 0 50 0 0 50Employees = 2715Colonel Belcher - Initiated by 13 different clientsRouleau Manor - Initiated by 12 different clientsSignal Pointe - Initiated by 8 different clients

Aggression in the Workplace Detail

1st Q 16/17 - Aggression in the Workplace 2nd Q 16/17 - Aggression in the Workplace

3rd Q 16/17 - Aggression in the Workplace 4th Q 16/17 - Aggression in the Workplace

32

Goal Area:


• Targeted Service Development □ • Cost Effective Organization ■

2015/16 2016/17Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Variance (percentage) 7.4% 4.5% 2.3% 0.1% 1.0% 2.6% 0.5%Target 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%


Operating Surplus (Variance)

Balanced Budget (Variance)

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Executive Leadership Committee

Definition:

Analysis: Q3


Decrease in operating surplus was due to additional accrual for wage settlement and renovation. Unbudgeted

bad debt and cost related to the reductions in Health Benefits Trust Account net assets.

Data Source: Carewest Financial data

The Operating Surplus Indicator compares the actual net operating surplus (deficit) to the actual net revenues.

0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/17

Variance (percentage)

33

Goal Area:


• Targeted Service Development □ • Cost Effective Organization ■

2015/16 2016/2017Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Overtme/Agency Costs (%) 1.19% 1.11% 1.04% 1.00% 0.73% 0.86% 0.82% 0.0%Target (percentage) 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

Overtime/Agency Costs as a Percentage of Cost of Total Worked Hours


Overtime/Agency Costs as a Percentage of Cost of Total Worked Hours

Definition: Total overtime costs and agency costs to total worked hours.

Accountability for Analysis and Action: Directors and Managers in all Programs

Analysis:

Plan for Improvement/Timelines: Overtime and agency utilizaition use continues to be monitored and discussed

at the sites.

Data Source: Carewest Financial data reported quarterly.

Improved slightly from last quarter despite expected utilization to offset sick time with increase in staff outbreak

incidents.

0.00%0.20%0.40%0.60%0.80%1.00%1.20%1.40%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015/16 2016/2017

Overtme/Agency Costs (%) Target (percentage)

34

Balanced Scorecard - Carewest

Documents

Transcript of Balanced Scorecard - Carewest