We have found lots of errors made as we analysed the CDHB. This time by both EY and the Crown Monitor. Here is a response to the document produced by EY to the Board:
Analytical and Interpretative Errors
The EY Report provided to QFARC, comments and presentations to the Board and QFARC have implied that the DHB could correct its current deficit by enhancing its operating controls and becoming more efficient. The analysis is flawed.
The analysis provided by EY asserts that CDHB has a nursing workforce in excess of peer DHBs – this is not supported by analysis undertaken using correct data from national data sets which establishes that in nursing FTE terms CDHB is in line with peers and when medical and nursing workforce is combined CDHB is better than most peer DHBs and markedly better than ADHB which is the closest DHB in terms of actual service delivery in addition CDHB’s workforce assessed with or without including agency and locum staff is markedly less expensive per FTE.