ACT Health - HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the ...€¦ · The Health Professional Classification Level 3 Personal Upgrade for the Recognition of Excellence Scheme was conceived

Newsletter: 370/2015 Date: 26 October 2015 Distribution: ACT PAICT Sub Branch members Contact: Your organiser

ACT Health - HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the Recognition of Excellence

Dear Member, Attached is the correspondence received from Ms Karen Murphy, ACT Health Chief Allied Health Officer, advising completion of the Review into the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the Recognition of Excellence. The recommendations of this Final Report are welcomed, and are a major win achieved by our HSU ACT Professional Sub Branch (PAICT). The HSU fought hard to instigate this review of the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme. HSU organiser, industrial and sub-branch involvement There was much talk by ACT Health representatives during the last ACT Enterprise Agreement negotiations of the scheme being abandoned because of the lack of applicants. The HSU argued that the Scheme was too onerous for Health Professionals to achieve upgrades. ACT Health agreed to undertake a review of the scheme. Industrial Officer Bert Coquillon, Organiser Bev Turello and HSU PAICT Secretary Leigh Bush participated fully in the Project Reference Group. Our Professional HSU ACT Sub Branch members rallied and participated in the Online Survey and Focus Groups. By our combined action and participation, we have retained and simplified the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme. The most effective way to deal with this kind of review is by taking into account the concerns of the group, agreeing on a way forward and presenting that united position to management. Recommendations of the Final Report: 1. Continue the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the Recognition of Excellence with changes as recommended below: 2. Administration of the Scheme, including secretariat function, to be managed by each Directorate and Calvary Health Care Bruce. 3. “Eligibility to apply” to be enhanced with applicants no longer needing to be at HP3.3 for 12 months before being eligible to apply nor be required to be permanently employed. 4. All potential applicants will be required to have their “eligibility to apply” confirmed by the agency specific Scheme Secretariat prior to preparing and submitting an application. 5. The number of assessment criteria will be reduced from four to two. 6. One mandatory Directorate/organisational criterion and one mandatory profession based criterion will be introduced. 7. Successful applicants will be advanced directly to HP3.5, removing the two-stage process of advancing initially to HP3.4 and one year later automatically advancing to HP3.5. Well done members, all of our HSU recommendations have been accepted.

Please distribute this newsletter to your work colleagues so that they can see the result of our collective action. Not a member of the HSU? Now is time to join and have your say! You can join online or call 1300 478 679 and join over the phone. A union’s effectiveness and negotiation power strongly depends upon the strength and density of its membership base. Join your work colleagues today by becoming a member of the Health Services Union and help us to continue to protect, build and improve your working life. In unity,

Gerard Hayes Secretary, HSU NSW/ACT.

https://www.hsu.asn.au/join-hsu/

https://www.hsu.asn.au/join-hsu/

Review into the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the Recognition of Excellence – 2014 Page 1 of 75

Review into the HP3 Personal

Upgrade Scheme for the

Recognition of Excellence

Final Report

September 2015

CHIEF ALLIED HEALTH OFFICE


Version control: September 2015


Table of contents

Acknowledgements 4

1 Introduction

1.1 Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………… 5

1.2 History of the Scheme…………………………………………………………………………….. 6

1.3 Current Administration of the Scheme……………………………………………………. 6

1.4 The Scheme Promotion…………………………………………………………………………… 7

1.5 The Assessment Process…………………………………………………………………………. 7

2 Rationale for a Review

2.1 Issues with the Application Process………………………………………………………… 8

2.2 Eligibility………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

2.3 Recruitment Challenges…………………………………………………………………………. 8

2.4 Application Outcomes 2006-2013………………………………………………………….. 9

2.5 Pathway Anomalies………………………………………………………………………………. 10

2.6 Issues of Perception amongst Allied Health Professionals…………………….. 10

2.7 Scope of the Scheme – Why only HP3?..................................................... 11

2.8 Other Factors that Impact on the Scheme……………………………………………….. 12

3 Review plan

3.1 Project Brief…………………………………………………………………………………………. 13

3.2 Review Methodology…………………………………………………………………………….. 13

4 Review Findings

4.1 Electronic Survey – Summarised Feedback…………………………………………… 15

4.2 Focus Groups……………………………………………………………………………………….. 28

4.3 Focus Groups –Summarised Feedback…………………………………………………. 29

4.4 Written Submissions……………………………………………………………………………. 33

4.5 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………. 33

5 Recommendations for the Future 34

6 Appendices 36

Appendix A: HP3 Upgrade Scheme Review Newsletter…………………………….. 38

Appendix B: Application Package 2014……………………………………………… 39

Appendix C: Explanatory Guide to the Assessment Criteria 2014………….. 50

Appendix D: Guidelines for Referees 2014 …..…………………………………….. 67

Appendix E: ACT Health Workforce Policy & Planning Data

and analysis: HP3 employees ……………………………………………………………………. 77


Acknowledgements

The Chief Allied Health Office would like to acknowledge the valuable work and support of the

Executive Management Group, the Project Reference Group and all allied health professionals

consulted during the course of the review. The Chief Allied Health Office also acknowledges the

important contribution of the Community Services Directorate, Education and Training Directorate,

Health Directorate, Justice and Community Safety Directorate and Calvary Health Care Bruce. The

input of all other external agencies and individuals who contributed to the review is also

acknowledged.


1 Introduction

1.1 Executive Summary

In 2003 ACT Health undertook the project Review of Health Professionals and Related Classifications. Feedback received at that time revealed a need for organisational recognition of professional excellence and subsequently the Health Professional Level 3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the Recognition of Excellence (‘the Scheme’) was introduced and incorporated into the Certified Agreement at that time. Applications for the inaugural round closed in 2006.

Since 2008 the Scheme has been administered by the ACT Health Chief Allied Health Office (formerly the Allied Health Advisor’s Office) on behalf of those ACT Government Directorates and Calvary Health Care Bruce that employ eligible staff under the Health Professionals Enterprise Agreement.

Notwithstanding the intentions of the original advisory group, a number of issues in terms of access and equity have continued to be raised over the life of the Scheme which prompted the Chief Allied Health Office to conduct a review of the Scheme in 2014.

This report documents the review, describes the history of the Scheme’s operation and discusses the feedback received from stakeholders. The consultation process showed that whilst staff appreciate the concept of recognising personal excellence they are of the view that the Scheme has not achieved its original intent of recognising excellence, based on the number of unsuccessful applicants and the consequences that follow including disappointment and low morale. This review supports the Scheme’s continued operation through a revised administration and application process including re-distribution of the administrative load from ACT Health to all Directorates and Calvary Health Care Bruce, enhancing eligibility criteria and by streamlining the assessment criteria such that they have greater relevance to applicants applying from all Directorates.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Continue the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the Recognition of Excellence with changes as recommended below:

2. Administration of the Scheme, including secretariat function, to be managed by each Directorate and Calvary Health Care Bruce.

3. “Eligibility to apply” to be enhanced with applicants no longer needing to be at HP3.3 for 12 months before being eligible to apply nor be required to be permanently employed.

4. All potential applicants will be required to have their “eligibility to apply” confirmed by the agency specific Scheme Secretariat prior to preparing and submitting an application.

5. The number of assessment criteria will be reduced from four to two.

6. One mandatory Directorate/organisational criterion and one mandatory profession based criterion will be introduced.

7. Successful applicants will be advanced directly to HP3.5, removing the two stage process of advancing initially to HP3.4 and one year later automatically advancing to HP3.5.

Broadly, the consultation process revealed support for the proposed recommendations. Following feedback regarding the initial proposal of an allowance instead of the pay point progression the recommendation was amended to maintain and expedite pay point progression. Other feedback related to Recommendation Two in which concerns were raised about the Scheme being managed by each Directorate was not accepted however the Chief Allied Health Office has agreed to chair a cross-agency Working Party to help support Directorates and Calvary Health Care Bruce transition to self-management. Further details regarding the Recommendations can be found at pages 33-35.


1.2 History of the Scheme

The Health Professional Classification Level 3 Personal Upgrade for the Recognition of Excellence Scheme was conceived as a result of feedback received during the 2003 ACT Health Review of Health Professionals and Related Classifications (the 2003 Review). The feedback from staff at the time indicated that there was limited opportunity for organisational recognition in a manner that acknowledged professional excellence.

At the time of the 2003 review career opportunities for allied health professionals were considered limited, with career progression associated with a ‘forced’ move into a management role rather than one within the profession in which the individual had originally trained. Health professionals at the HP3 level wishing to continue in a dedicated clinical role identified a lack of opportunity for the recognition of, and reward for, personal excellence and were of the view that a ceiling was in place unless they moved to a management role.

Whilst there have been further developments since 2003 with the introduction and expansion of Health Professional Level 4 roles to include management, professional or educator pathways the Health Professional Level 3 classification continues to be a tension point for the workforce.

In November 2004, the ACT Health, Clerical, Technical, Professional, Health Service Officer’s Certified Agreement 2004-2007 was ratified and introduced a new classification structure for health professionals. The new classification was derived from recommendations arising from the 2003 Review and was endorsed by portfolio executive in March 2004. The Personal Upgrade Scheme was subsequently developed by a Management Advisory Group, supported by health professional workforce representatives, Human Resources staff and union officials.

Documentation on file indicates that at the time of its introduction the Scheme was based on an estimate of 20% of HP3 applicants successfully meeting the Scheme’s assessment criteria.

Whilst the Scheme has over the last eight years provided a vehicle for 33 individuals to achieve the upgrade, the inherent premise of the Scheme, the assessment criteria, the application and assessment process and the relatively small financial reward all contribute to a negative perception of the Scheme and these views underpin the need for a formal review of the Scheme.

1.3 Current Administration of the Scheme

Applications for the inaugural round closed in March 2006 and at that time the Scheme was operationally managed by the ACT Health Human Resource Branch (now People Strategy and Services Branch-PSSB). In 2008 responsibility was transferred to the Allied Health Advisor’s Office (now the Chief Allied Health Office-CAHO) albeit without budgeted staffing resources.

CAHO is still administering the Scheme on behalf of all Directorates and Calvary Health Care Bruce, with administrative responsibility for the Scheme ‘added’ to the work program of an existing member of the CAHO team.

Administration of the Scheme and the assessment process is time consuming. Tasks include Scheme promotion, group and individual information sessions for prospective applicants, managing all enquiries, maintaining the web page, liaising with other Directorates and Calvary Health Care Bruce, organising and co-ordinating the Core Assessment Panel, procurement of discipline specific assessors, preparation of correspondence, writing up of all applicant feedback post assessment meetings, coordination of delegate sign-off and supporting applicants through the application and outcome process. The turn-around from closing date to outcome announcement takes around 3 months. The activation of the actual upgrade payment occurs once each recommendation has been endorsed and the successful applicants are notified to PSSB who in turn endorse the upgrade through confirmation with Payroll.


1.4 Scheme Promotion

Applications are invited once yearly with the Scheme opening between January-February each year and closing approximately 3 months later. Timing of the round opening date has varied in accordance with the workload of the Scheme Secretariat and other operational pressures.

Prior to opening the Scheme each year, it is promoted via email, intranet and internet, face to face at regular meetings and through invitations to attend Information Sessions - group, team or individual.

Key dates and information are disseminated to a nominated representative in the Directorates external to ACT Health including Calvary Health Care Bruce. It is expected that those key representatives will disseminate critical dates and information about the Scheme to their agency networks. It is the Secretariat’s experience that this is inconsistently managed across those Directorates.

1.5 Assessment Process

The Core Assessment Panel typically comprises three senior allied health and the Secretariat endeavours to include representatives from those Directorates represented by the applicants. The Core Assessment Panel assesses all applications and seeks further advice and assessment from discipline specific assessors, and other relevant persons as required.

Sourcing appropriately skilled and independent panel members and discipline assessors is an increasing challenge, with burn out often occurring after participation in a single round. Each applicant is assessed on their own merits and there is no competitive ranking or quotas.

The overall assessment of an individual application is based on an aggregate of the following:

Written application addressing four criteria-two Mandatory Criteria and two Elective Criteria;

Extent, quality and relevance of supporting evidence attached to application;

Supervisor sign-off (applicant can submit without supervisor support);

Referee Report-submitted by applicant;

Discipline Assessor report-procured by Core Assessment Panel;

Individual assessment by each member of the Core Assessment Panel;

Additional information that may be requested from the referee, supervisor or other relevant person.


2 Rationale for a Review

2.1 Issues with the Application Process

The application is paper-based and is seen as favouring applicants with more developed written communication skills; the Scheme does not offer interviews. Applicants are required to provide written responses to two mandatory criteria and further to select two additional criteria from a choice of ten elective criteria. (Appendix B, page 38)

A review of past applications and outcomes highlights that some applicants have not clearly understood the intent or requirement of the elective criteria, resulting in the selection of criteria against which they then struggled to adequately demonstrate excellence.

An additional challenge is that applicants are required to demonstrate that they are performing at a level beyond that normally expected of their position and classification. Applicants are required to submit their Duty Statement to help inform the Assessment Panel’s understanding of the normal expectations of the applicant’s position and it is the Panel’s experience that there is wide discrepancy between what is expected of a HP3 in one area versus another area and/or or one discipline versus another.

The long held perception that the application process is time-consuming was validated by the survey results. It is not only time consuming for applicants with competing caseloads and other demands in the workplace. Staff who don’t have time or who are not required to participate in quality improvement programs are disadvantaged in terms of being able to adequately frame responses against criteria that seek evidence of demonstrated excellence in project management, research or quality improvement.

The review also noted that many workplaces were unable to dedicate or invest time in the pre-application phase when staff are considering whether or not to prepare an application. In part this reflects the Scheme’s ‘bad press’ which has created a workforce perception that success is limited and the return on investment (time and emotions) is low. To facilitate a more proactive approach supervisors and managers need to identify potential applicants through the annual Performance Framework discussions, provide prospective applicants with guidance and support and be willing to have a critical conversation when they believe an applicant is not yet ready to submit an application.

2.2 Eligibility

A significant barrier to current eligibility is that applicants must be on HP3 pay point 3 for 12 months prior to applying (Appendix B, p38).

This eligibility restriction is perceived as a barrier to recruitment as staff commencing at HP3.1 will have to wait three years to progress to HP3.3 and then sit out a further waiting period of twelve months after they reach HP3.3 before being eligible to apply. Whilst the Scheme does make provision for staff who believe that their previous employment was equivalent to HP3.3 claims to this effect have been difficult to validate as they require significant research into interstate or international equivalence by the Scheme Secretariat. Even where jurisdictional equivalence is accepted this usually puts an applicant at a disadvantage as their application is meant to be written from current employment experiences/achievements not those acquired in their previous position.


2.3 Recruitment Challenges

HP3 positions are typically advertised with a standard annual salary statement as follows: “Annual Salary: $ 77,710 - $81,995 (up to $86,165 on achieving a personal upgrade)”1 There is a perception that this is misleading as most prospective applicants do not understand that achieving a personal upgrade requires a formal application to the Scheme as well as needing to meet eligibility criteria and waiting times. Conversely, where a Special Employment Agreement (SEA) is in place it cannot be included in the advertisement. When an applicant is from a profession with an SEA their base salary is often well above that of the upper HP3.5 pay point however the SEAs are in turn adjusted to incorporate a further salary increase at HP3.4 and HP3.5, over and above the already higher salary. Duty Statements are often out of date and there can be a wide discrepancy between what is expected of a HP3 in one area versus another or one discipline versus another.

2.4 Applications and Outcomes 2006-2013

The Scheme has been in operation for eight years.

76 applications received over the Scheme’s lifetime to date.

43% of applications have been successful.

ACT Health applicants have been the majority group, followed by Community Services Directorate, Calvary and Justice and Community Safety (ref:Figure 12 below)

Of the scientific and diagnostic professions, Medical Laboratory Scientists have submitted the greatest number of applications and have had the greatest number of successful applicants (Figure 2, p10).

Of the therapeutic professions, Physiotherapists have submitted the greatest number of applications and have had the greatest number of successful applicants (Figure 3, p10).

Figure 1: Applicant Profile by Directorate: 2007-2013

1 Rate of pay taken from ACT Public Service Health Directorate (Health Professionals) Enterprise Agreement 2011-2013.

Pay rate quoted here is from 1.7.2012.

2 Agency data not reported prior to 2007


Figure 2: Outcome of Scientific and Diagnostic Applications:-2006-13

Figure 3: Outcome of Therapeutic Applications: 2006-13

2.5 Pathway Anomalies

During the course of this review it has become apparent that a group of staff have been advanced to the restricted pay points HP3.4 and HP3.5 without having been successfully awarded the HP3 Upgrade.

These occurrences have been via multiple pathways including above base grade salary upon appointment or promotion, accelerated incremental advancement, via salary negotiations supporting transfer on reduction or upon termination of an individual Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) and/or standard increment advancement.

The circumstances of these cases will be considered separately to this review and independent of the Chief Allied Health Office.


2.6 Issues of Perception amongst Allied Health Professionals

The original intent of the Scheme was to recognise HP3 staff who demonstrate excellence. This recognition was intended to be given in the form of remuneration and ideally leading to increased retention. The increased remuneration is relatively minor at 3% p.a. increase from HP3.3 to HP3.4 and 2% increase from HP3.4 to HP3.5.

There is little evidence to support the Scheme making a significant impact on retention in terms of the applicants. The majority of applicants have been unsuccessful but they continue to maintain their employment albeit with a resulting lower sense of morale.

Exit survey information from HP3 from staff that left ACT Health from July 2012 to July 2014 does not contain specific reference in the comments to the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme but does contain some broad information about reason for staff exits.

“The exit survey data provides an overall picture of increasing

retention of permanent HP3s in ACT Health, but a higher loss of HP3s

employed in temporary and casual contracts.

There are no indications that decisions to exit are influenced by the

HP3 upgrade the Scheme.

While only 13% of HP3s are temporary or casual employees, about

30% of HP3s exiting ACT Health are temporary or casual employees.

Many will relate to planned ending of short term contracts, but there

could also be dissatisfaction amongst HP3s employed on a temporary

basis and a preference to move to permanent (more secure) roles

elsewhere.

The data indicates that HP3 employees are increasing as a total

percentage of permanent Health Professional employees and that

numbers of HP3s are increasing across ACT Health.

This suggests that permanent HP3s are being retained at a healthy

level and are growing within ACT Health. This may indicate that

caution is required to ensure that the HP skill-mix does not

become unbalanced and exceed the level required to deliver services

efficiently.”

(Source: Cathy Watson, ACT Health Workforce Policy & Planning Initiatives Coordinator, September

2014-Appendix E, p76).

2.7 Scope of the Scheme – Why only HP3?

The allied health workforce have expressed concerns about why the Scheme is focussed on the HP3 level only and question why there no similar recognition of excellence for HP1, HP2 or HP4. This can perhaps be explained by reflecting that at the time the Scheme was devised there was a workforce view that staff at the HP3 level were limited in career progression opportunities unless they elected to leave clinical practice and follow a career path into management. Clinicians passionate about their clinical role wished to remain clinical specialists however they had no other means in 2003 to


achieve higher remuneration or recognition. Over the ensuing decade however opportunities have opened up with the introduction of new roles albeit at HP4 and HP5 level, for example, HP4 Senior Clinician, HP4 Clinical Educator and HP4 Clinical Specialist as well as the recent HP5 Extended Scope roles.

Other opportunities for reward and recognition include the Allied Health Awards for Excellence, the Allied Health Postgraduate Scholarship Scheme and Allied Health Research Grants, all of which are delivered through the Chief Allied Health Office and are accessible to eligible allied health professionals at all classification levels. Other Directorates did not report similar initiatives.

2.8 Other Factors that Impact upon the Scheme

The Scheme Secretariat, through the experience of administering the Scheme, noted that many applicants have difficulty obtaining quality referee reports. Some referees find it difficult to provide a meaningful commentary in support of the individual’s application, fail to read the applicant’s claims, present unrelated opinion and at worst cut and paste the applicant’s text into the referee report template. Difficulties are exacerbated by the high number of allied health managers and supervisors in acting positions, making it logistically challenging for applicants to obtain a referee who can comment insightfully on their performance.

Community Services Directorate (CSD) applicants have provided feedback that their work practices, team structures, models of care and case loads do not allow them the opportunity to participate in many of the activities reflected in the elective criteria-for example, research, education and training, quality improvement, service change and significant project work as well as management and leadership. This effectively narrows the range of elective criteria options from which a CSD applicant can select. This feedback has been expressed during the years of the Scheme and through the review’s online survey and focus groups.

It can be very hard for an unsuccessful applicant to receive the feedback that their lack of success is not necessarily a reflection on their performance or competence but rather reflects that they were unable to demonstrate excellence as required by the Scheme. It is the experience of the Scheme Secretariat and panel members that applicants are most typically performing at the level normally expected of their position however based on their written application, their evidence, their referee report and the discipline assessor feedback the Panel was unable to find sufficient evidence to demonstrate the level of excellence required. The Panel is very cognisant of this and provides a detailed feedback report to each applicant, by way of explaining the strengths of the application and where and how changes could be made for a further application.


3 Review Plan

3.1 Project Brief

Anecdotal feedback suggested that the current HP3 Professional Upgrade Scheme for the Recognition of Excellence is not an appropriate or achievable vehicle for recognizing excellence and many applicants, particularly those working in roles with a significant frontline service delivery component, reported that they were simply unable to gain experience in, or procure evidence for, a significant number of the assessment criteria.

With the Scheme approaching its 10th anniversary in 2015 it is timely to implement a review of the Scheme and its original objectives with a view to determining its relevance in the current workplace context.

The Chief Allied Health Office supported the review with a 0.5 FTE Project Officer.

3.2 Review Methodology

The review methodology consisted of a variety of approaches as follows:

Project Officer was recruited to the ACT Health Chief Allied Health Office to undertake the review.

Executive Management Group (EMG) was responsible for the overall monitoring of the review project and to support and guide the project officer. The Executive Sponsor of the EMG was the Chief Allied Health Officer and Acting Chief Allied Health Officer, with members including the Senior Allied Health Project Officer/Scheme Secretariat (Chief allied Health Office) and ACT Health Senior Industrial Relations Advisor (People Strategy and Services Branch).

Project Reference Group (PRG) was established with the aim of engaging a wider group of key stakeholders in the review. The functions of the PRG are to assist in the dissemination of information about the HP3 Upgrade Scheme Review, Provide a conduit for information exchange about the progress of the HP3 Upgrade Scheme Review, Receive and consider the report containing recommendations regarding the current proposed options for the Schemes’ continuation, variation or cessation and provide support and guidance to the Project Officer.

PRG Membership

Chief Allied Health Officer (Executive Sponsor) – Karen Murphy/Michelle Daly

Senior Allied Health Project Officer & HP3 Upgrade Scheme administrator – Sally Ranford

PSSB Representation – Steven Linton

CSD Representation – Bruce Hogan

JACS Representation – Prashant Munro

Calvary Health Care Bruce Representation – David Prior/Lisa Buckley

ETD Representation – Arlene McKenzie

CPSU Representation – Elizabeth Spence

HSU Representation – Bev Turello

Professionals Australia Representation – David Smith

Project officer (secretariat) – Rosy Winter

File review was conducted to determine trends and patterns in the past application outcomes, the issues that have been encountered during the administration of the Scheme and the feedback that has been received during the life of the Scheme.

Newsletter was circulated with the reasons for the review of the Scheme, a brief description of the history and an outline of the plan (Appendix A, p37).


Survey Monkey questionnaire was circulated to all health professional staff using the Survey monkey tool in July 2014. The purpose was to gather both qualitative and quantitative data on workforce perceptions of the Scheme and options for its future. Responses were received from 294 staff across five Directorates.

Focus groups were held following the conclusion of the survey to elicit more detailed data on workforce perceptions.

Written submissions were invited by anyone wishing to document their experience. A thematic analysis was undertaken and the main issues raised summarised.

Feedback on the draft report

In October 2014 the draft review report was circulated to the PRG members including union representatives and a representative from each Directorate. A request was made at this time to circulate the draft to their work areas in order to collect and provide feedback so the Directorates would have an understanding of the implications of the recommendations. Engagement at this stage from the PRG was limited but of the feedback received there was concordance with regards Recommendations 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Concerns were expressed in relation to Recommendations 2 and 7 as set out below.

Feedback was received from the regarding Recommendation 7 (Recommendation 2 in the draft report) around the proposal to devolve administration of the Scheme to each Directorate and Calvary Health Care Bruce. Concern was expressed about the capacity of each Directorate to find the resource to provide the administration however the Executive Management Group remain committed to this recommendation as it is consistent with the workforce feedback gathered in the electronic survey around the Scheme being “health-centric”, and will help resolve the resource difficulties faced by the Chief Allied Health Office in managing the Scheme on behalf of all Directorates and Calvary Health Care Bruce.

In response to the concerns raised by the CPSU and the HSU regarding Recommendation 2, known as Recommendation 7 in the draft report, the EMG agreed to retain the pay points HP3.4 and HP3.5 rather than institute an allowance as originally proposed. The EMG also agreed to advance successful applicants directly to HP3.5, negating the need for the current two stage advancement.

4 Review Findings

4.1 Survey Monkey questionnaire

The online Survey Monkey questionnaire launched in July 2014 and remained open for 30 working days, with responses received from 294 staff across five Directorates and Calvary Health Care Bruce. The survey explored the current professional and organisational work environment of the respondents and asked questions about personal experience of the Scheme and perceptions of the Scheme. Both drop down menus and comments sections were offered.

Promotion of the survey was managed via email networks, ACT Health ‘HUB’ intranet and advertised twice on the Whole of Government Messages. The WoG email was a successful strategy and resulted in a significant spike in responses including health professional staff working in the Education and Training Directorate. The project team was previously unaware of these staff and as a result the review was able to ensure inclusion of these health professionals in subsequent consultation, namely the focus groups and the Second Project Reference Group.


Question 1: Please tell us which Directorate you work in?

291 staff answered this question and 3 skipped it.

The three staff that skipped the questionnaire identified themselves in the Comments Section as employees of the Education and Training Directorate (DET). DET was unintentionally omitted from the survey drop down menu as the project team was unaware at the time that DET employed health professionals. The majority of responses came from ACT Health staff (70.79%) and 24.40% came from staff employed in the Community Services Directorate (Figure 4 below).

Figure 4. Survey respondents work locations.


Question 2: Please tell us your profession?

Staff were asked to identify their profession from a drop down menu of 30 allied health professions.

It should be acknowledged that there are staff categories employed under the Health Professional

Classification not listed in the drop down menu but who subsequently made themselves known to

the Chief Allied Health Office. Seventy-two social workers responded which was the largest staff

group followed by medical laboratory scientists (33), physiotherapists (29), psychologists (28) and

occupational therapists (26). It is notable that both the medical laboratory scientist profession and

the physiotherapy profession have been the most successful applicants while traditionally social

workers, psychologists and occupational therapists have been significantly less successful during the

life of the Scheme. The findings from this question suggest that there was a good response from a

range of staff likely to represent differing viewpoints and strengthening the validity of the overall

survey results.

Figure 5. Survey Respondent Profession


Q3: What is your current classification level? Answered: 291 Skipped: 3

Significantly 53.61% of respondents reported that they are employed at the Health Professional

Level 3 classification, with a further 3.44% describing themselves in the ‘Other-please specify’

Section, specifying that they were substantively at HP3 but currently acting in an HP4 role. The

second and third largest groups of respondents were from HP4 staff and HP2 staff respectively. This

suggests that the survey reached the staff it was aimed at - those most likely to be affected by the

Scheme either as potential or previous applicants, or as staff working alongside potential or previous

applicants. 5.15% of respondents identified themselves as being at the Manager level.

Figure 6. Current Classification Levels


Q4: What is your experience of the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme? Answered: 194 Skipped: 100

Figure 7.Survey Respondents experience of the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme

Signifi

As per Figure 7 above, 50% of respondents answered this question by saying they had looked at the

application form but decided not to apply. Of those, 40 respondents wrote additional comments

with many originating from staff in the Community Services Directorate. The CSD staff felt that the

Scheme was out of reach and some reported that they have been told not to apply.

“I have been told it is impossible to get it so I have not bothered to look it up”

“Because of the nature of my current work load I can hardly get relevant experience on many

of the criteria”

“I was told that working in CSD made it impossible to get an upgrade”

“I have heard it is practically impossible to be successful in your application”


Another cluster of comments revealed that some staff mistakenly believe post graduate

qualifications are required.

“Was planning on applying after finishing my masters”

“Requires considerable effort in post grad quals. prior to application”.

“Despite working above my role and duties I am not eligible as I have not completed further

post graduate study.”

Some staff felt unable to apply due to competing priorities.

“This is a long onerous process. It is always run in the first quarter of the year this is the

busiest time for families with children at home for holidays then heading back to a new

school year. The process is time consuming and is difficult to prioritise at this stage of the

year.”


Q5: Please rate the following statement: 'The HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme has achieved the original intent of recognising excellence.' Answered: 214 Skipped: 80

In total 55.5% of respondents (or 117 people) disagreed with the above statement with only 28%

agreeing (Figure 8). The largest response was from people who strongly disagreed.

Figure 8. Rating the statement “The HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme has achieved the original

intent of recognising excellence.”


In addition 84 free text comments were provided and a sample provided below.

No - the criteria are not relevant (28 comments) “Excellence is not always measurable by the standards set forth in the Scheme”

“It is very difficult for staff outside the Health Directorate to be acknowledged as we need more generalist skills”

“The construction of excellence is almost impossible to achieve for clinicians who are employed to do service delivery and have their occasions of service counted”

“The Scheme has a very narrow focus”

• No – the criteria are too hard (19 comments) “The paperwork involved is ridiculously prohibitive” “The process is too arduous and time consuming”

“The Scheme makes it too hard to establish excellent practice” “I think the idea is excellent, but there needs to be a better and more efficient way of

applying”

• Yes, I agree with the statement. (11 comments) “One of my colleagues was successful in her application for an upgrade and well deserved

this recognition. “ “The only person I know who has achieved HP3 upgrade I do consider as excellent and highly

skilled.” “For those who obtain it, it does denote excellence however; most individuals who would be

eligible are upgraded to HP4 level long before they can apply.”

• I don’t know. (8 comments) “Don't know anyone who has achieved the upgrade to hear their experiences.”

• Just remove the increment barriers. (5 comments) “I don't think there should be an upgrade the Scheme, it should just be increments. The HP3

pay scale is inadequate enough without forcing HP3 to spend hours writing an application for an upgrade which should be awarded automatically.”

• Excellence should be recognised in other ways.(2) “While the way the Scheme runs recognises excellence through remuneration, there is limited

recognition in other forms across the organisation.”

• The criteria just reflects standard work rather than excellence.(2) “The Scheme rewards some for just doing their job. It doesn't take into account the number of staff you supervise/train. If your name is on a professional paper there is no indication of

the amount of contributory work done by the individual or whether as a supervisor they passed the tasks on to a junior.”


Q6. What implications, if any, are there for the work team if a staff

member is successful?

• 36 respondents said the implications for the work team is a rise in morale and encouragement.

“It is likely to encourage the staff member to continue to show leadership and excellence in the work place, contributing to the needs of the team”

“Happy. Encourages more people to enhance skills, do more courses, improve skills & knowledge for the job”

“Increase in staff morale, positive work outputs, staff retention” “An additional happy staff member”

• 32 respondents said ‘none’ or ‘nil’ “The member continues to do the exact work that he/she had previously not been

recognised.” “No difference - if a staff member is specialised and already providing those skills to the team

- the upgrade system does not change anything.” “No different for the applicant in our team. She was already contacted as a clinical resource

and regularly presented to peers and others.”

• 30 respondents said excellence would be recognised. “It is recognition for the level and expertise that the staff member has shown and recognition

overall that the team is performing at a high level.” “Improved retention and recognition, all staff feel more appreciated.”

“Local recognition in staff meetings.”

• 21 respondents said the work team becomes resentful. “The rest of the team would feel undervalued.”

“Feelings of ‘they think they are better than the rest of us.’” “It can cause some resentment when they perceive they work just as hard, but not in the way

that would enable them to make a submission themselves.”

• Don’t know/ no experience (14) “No one in my current working environment has been successful”

• Pay rise – retention of staff (13) “More $ therefore easier to retain staff”

• Impacts on the budget (3) “Less budget for relevant department.”

• Inequity (3)

• Other (5)


Q6. What implications, if any, are there for the work team if a staff

member is unsuccessful?

This question elicited strong feedback about the negative consequences for the work team when a

staff member is unsuccessful in their application to the Scheme. It is worth remembering here that a

greater number of staff (43) have been unsuccessful than have been successful (33) in the years

2006-2013. The Survey Monkey text analysis reflects this by showing the 28 most important words

and phrases with the size of the font indicating the frequency of use (Figure 9 below).

The methodology of examining each comment and grouping them under headings reveals that the

largest grouping (54 people) feel that when a staff member is unsuccessful it impacts team morale

and discourages striving for excellence. The comments are grouped under the headings below.

• Damaging to the morale of the team and discourages striving for excellence.(54)

“I think it would be degrading, and make someone and their team feel dejected.”

“Discourages other HP3 staff from applying. Everyone is disheartened. The unsuccessful applicant is emotionally upset and feels undervalued and this affects the whole team.”

“This could impact negatively on the team if the unsuccessful applicant leaves because they feel underappreciated for their skill level (if their skill level is appropriate).”

• Humiliated disappointed or disgruntled applicant. (30) “The unsuccessful applicant is annoyed, followed by being disgruntled & productivity drops

for a while.” “Embarrassment and no increase in pay after a lot of effort to apply.”

• No implications (25) “I was unsuccessful and there was no impact on me.”

• Don’t know/ Information kept confidential (16) “Kept confidential so shouldn't be any.”

• Lowers staff retention.(14) “Staff more likely to move on to other work places, feeling that the workplace doesn't

appreciate them.”

• Teams can learn from the unsuccessful experience (4) “Creates a conversation and clinicians work out what they need to do to be successful.”

• No difference financially (2)


Q7. What implications, if any, are there for the whole organisation

if a staff member is successful?

• It has positive implications for the organisation such as retention and recognition

of excellence.(78) “Recognition that the organisation has excellent staff members”

“Higher skilled people would feel appreciated and the pay incentive would make them stay” “Professional development will be shared”

• It has positive implications for the organisation such as retention and recognition of excellence.(78)

“Recognition that the organisation has excellent staff members” “Higher skilled people would feel appreciated and the pay incentive would make them stay”

“Professional development will be shared”

• The organisation loses good staff/ staff morale is lowered (80 comments) “Unsuccessful staff may feel devalued and might leave clinical position, loss of professional

and corporate knowledge particularly (of course) from experienced staff. Loss of staff experienced in providing mentoring and supervision.”

• There is little or no impact on the organisation (23)

• As above (13)

• Don’t know (10)

• The impact is that staff no longer bother to make applications (3)


Q8: Overall, how satisfied are you with the current HP3 Personal

Upgrade Scheme as a way of recognising excellence in health

professionals?

Answered: 213 Skipped: 81

Figure 10. Satisfaction with the Current Scheme.


Q9: In your opinion, should the current HP3 Personal Upgrade

Scheme be continued, ceased or varied? Answered: 208 Skipped: 86

Figure 11. Opinions on the future of the HP3 Upgrade Scheme.

Comments

• The majority of comments (65) suggested the Scheme should be simplified and made more accessible.

“The criteria are too stringent- it’s easier to get an HP4 position than the upgrade!” “Less health focussed to help HP3 staff in other areas!”

“The current process is too difficult. It would take about 1 year for someone to compile all of the evidence to get through”

“It is often said that it is easier to get a HP4 management position than it is to get the upgrade. That is why people have not applied for it.”

• Cease the Scheme & remove the increment barrier to make it an automatic progression to the upper pay points (22)

“I think the upgrade should be an automatic thing and workers shouldn't need to jump through hoops.”

“Access to the higher increments should not be dependent on external review and approval. Perhaps these expectations of excellence should be included in all HP3 duty statements?” “HP3s should be provided with access to the top increment of the band to stop the false

advertising in job ads that leads to dissatisfaction when staff realise the barriers.”


• The Manager or Team Leader should have a greater role or full responsibility for

granting the upgrade (9)

• Recognise excellence with a different process (6)

• Make it similar to the Nursing Personal Upgrade Scheme (4)

• Introduce a Scheme that recognises HP staff at other classification levels too (3)

• Increase the HP4 opportunities (2)

• Make it more rigorous (2)


4.2 Focus Groups

Following completion of the online Survey Monkey questionnaire a series of eight focus groups were

conducted during the month of August 2014. The groups were aimed at Health Professional staff of

all classification levels to elicit qualitative data on workforce perceptions of the Scheme and to seek

input into recommendations for its future. The focus groups were advertised on the ACT Health

NewsHub and via email networks to all relevant Directorates and Calvary Health Care Bruce. The

focus groups were conducted at various venues across Canberra in an effort to be accessible for staff

based across community, city and hospital campus locations. The focus groups were attended by

fairly small numbers of staff with significantly more registering than attending. This may reflect the

often unpredictable and demanding workloads faced by health professionals and also the high

incidence of staff illness in the month of August.

Staff in the focus groups were given a presentation by the Project Officer consisting of a brief history

of the Scheme, including the origins and commencement, data on the history of success and failure

of the past applicants and the results of the electronic survey. Following the presentation discussion

was opened up. During the discussion there was considerable agreement with the survey findings

and staff generally seemed pleased that their views had been captured in the survey comments

presented. In the first two focus groups the Project Officer refrained from making suggestions about

the Scheme’s future allowing staff to generate their own ideas without being influenced. During the

following focus groups it was decided by the Executive Management Group supporting the Project

Officer that it would be wise to alter the methodology and begin to test some suggestions.

The focus group schedule was as follows.

Group number Date/time Venue

Focus group

1a

Wednesday 30th July, 2.00-3.00 Calvary Hospital

Focus group

1b

Monday 11th August , 11.00 -12.00 Canberra Hospital B24, Meeting Room 1

Focus group 2 Thursday 14th August, 11.00 - 12.00 1 Moore Street, Civic, L3 Conference Room

Focus group 3 Thursday 14th August, 2.00-3.00 Belconnen Health Centre, Group Room

1&2

Focus group 4 Friday 15th August, 1.00-2.00 Canberra Hospital, B24, Meeting Room 2

Focus group 5 Monday 18th August, 11.00 – 12.00 Gungahlin CHC, Meeting Room 1

Focus group 6 Tuesday 19th August, 10.00-11.00 Tuggeranong CHC, Meeting Room 3&4

Focus group 7 Thursday 21st August, 11.00-12.00 11 Moore Street, Civic, L2 Meeting Room 1


4.3 Focus groups -Summarised feedback

In all of the focus group discussions staff expressed considerable resonance with the sentiments that

came through from the online questionnaire and this reinforced the sense that the survey had been

successful in canvassing and capturing a broad range of opinions across the allied health workforce.

The discussions touched on a number of themes including the difficulties faced by the original

designers of the Scheme, the difficulty of defining excellence and of remunerating highly skilled staff

within the context of a standardized public service pay scale. Most felt the Scheme was flawed and

there was considerable discussion around the possibility of simplifying the Scheme and looking at

alternate means of acknowledging excellence.

Whilst there was range of differing opinions expressed there were some common themes and ideas

as follows:

Some professions and some roles within professions found the Scheme criteria more

appropriate than others for recognizing excellence so the process could be better tailored to

suit the individual workplaces and professions;

The current process is arduous and disheartening particularly for those staff with limited

opportunity for research;

Progression to pay points 4 and 5 could be reached in other ways such as linking excellence

to the achievement of competencies or a 3600 assessment;

There was a positive response to the suggestion from the Project Officer to change the

Scheme to an allowance and possibly re-naming the Scheme, for example Recognition of

Excellence Allowance (or similar).

There was agreement with the suggestion from the project officer that if the Scheme was

administered by the various Directorates it would allow for greater directorate specific

focus.

The participants were then asked provide a written continuation of the following sentence:

“The best plan for the future of the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme is...

Focus group 1a

Participant 1 To use increments without upgrade the Scheme criteria, at discretion of Director (HP5)

Participant 2 Remove the Scheme, leave the pay points as automatic so there are 5 pay points @ HP3 level – efficient and equitable.

Participant 3 To stop the Scheme.

Participant 4 Probably scrap the Scheme and replace it with an additional routine band at HP3 and HP4 level. Recognition for excellence is likely more valuable as one-off awards or scholarships.

Focus group 1b

Participant 1 Streamline the process and reduce the administrative burden on the applicant and


panel. Reconsider criteria to recognise the heterogeneity of the HP3 position between different classifications.

Participant 2 That it stays but with a review of the criteria so that it enables the less therapeutic professions increased access/ chance of success. “Excellence” definition is crucial.

Participant 3 Continue to review the strengths and weaknesses of the current one. Recognise excellence within different groups with more equity. Disseminate and promote the Scheme on a more regular basis.

Participant 4 To review the application and modify it to one for the scientific and one for the therapeutic HP’s as excellence is different in these groups. It should continue though. Review the criteria of “excellence”. Consider for other HP levels.

Participant 5 Abolish the Scheme due to inequity across HP3 professions (in regards to realistic application success)

Participant 6 Keep it. It rewards excellence. If the criteria don’t work for all disciplines (therapeutic and scientific) review the criteria or why does it not work for them? It is designed to recognise excellence it should require a stringent process in which you need to provide demonstrated evidence. In my opinion it is not easier than a HP4 application.

Participant 7 To rectify the existing upgrade system to allow for excellence achieved in a career outside ACT Health to be recognised and to not just have a service change/ development as a mandatory criteria as this is not always possible yet the person is still achieving excellence.

Participant 8 Distribute the upgrade the Scheme to extra incremental scale for HP3 (HP1-HP5) and; create a scholarship system for new project initiatives or research based practice. Provide training and development fund to enable Health Professionals to access relevant training, study and development.

Participant 9 To tie it into work roles that naturally would attract the best HP3 employees

Participant 10 Not submitted.

Focus Group 2

Participant 1 A varied Scheme with clear examples of evidence to be provided. Less arduous.

Participant 2 An allowance earned by competencies??? of that which also had a title attached –

e.g. Senior Practitioner

Participant 3 Criteria with ways they can be demonstrated. 360 degree assessment on those

criteria from manager, colleague, supervisee, student.

Focus group 3

Participant 1 It needs to be competency based and respectful of each individual discipline

Participant 2 Make the Scheme competency based – relevant to clinical areas – perhaps using

criteria for different professions. Fewer criteria.

Participant 3 I think the idea of the Scheme is good but recommend three changes:

Less criteria

More discipline related competencies

Review of assessment procedure

The concept of a Senior Professional ‘allowance’ is also very positive.


Focus group 4

Participant 1 For the Scheme to be more discipline specific and have greater recognition of a

clinician’s achievements as a whole, regardless of where they have worked or what

level they were at the time. This excellence needs to be assessed by panel members

who have the appropriate knowledge to do so.

Participant 2 Profession specific across the Directorates so threat of inequity is addressed ( and then cross referenced/ checked to other professions)

Simpler process to apply with different pathway options.

E.g. 1. Senior clinician skills (‘on the ground skills’)

2. Research skills

3. Educator /supervisor etc

Ensure the Scheme does recognise ‘Excellence’ that is delivered within work hours

Participant 3 Previous experience taken into account

To offer different pathways of achieving upgrade

To be assessed by experts relevant to that area of expertise ( may not be own profession)

Not too rigid e.g. Doesn’t have to meet A,B,C,D,E – maybe 3 out of those 5

Acknowledge sub-specialties within professions

Participant 4 Make the criteria more relevant to each area and specialties

Make the application process less complicated – it’s a job in itself.

Ensure managers are supportive and encouraging of eligible staff to apply for the upgrade

Advertise it more!

Participant 5 Acknowledgement of expertise and not ‘excellence’. Clinical expertise that is

consistently of a high standard and achieving positive outcomes is perhaps

‘expected’ but not always provided/achieved by HP3’s. Not all HP3’s even meet

their duty statement yet those that do and also do consistently then have another

upgrade hoop to be seen as ‘excellent’

Expansion of the increments also to have greater differentiation between junior

and senior HP3 clinicians

Focus group 6

Participant 1 Change the current criteria so there aren’t 2 mandatory but streamline the other.

This will make it easier for those who do have aspect of excellence but still required

to do ‘competent standard’ casework. Also would be good to not have to be at pay

point 3 for minimum 12 months before being able to apply. This disadvantages

excellent motivated staff that are only at HP3 increment 1.


Participant 2 To retain an overall ACT Government Upgrade Scheme but allow each Directorate

to basically amend this to suit their own needs and staff competencies/position

requirements. I would also like to see the eligibility criteria separated into 2

streams – practice related or policy related – It tries to cover too much at the

moment.

Focus group 7

Participant 1 A variation of the Scheme. Use as an allowance of excellence incorporating a 360

view of achievements in either professional performance or with recommendations

including from clients, senior team members, management and students.

Participant 2 To promote the allowance the Scheme entitlement for employees to evidence their

own personal achievements.

4.4 Written Submissions

One written submission was received from a recent applicant who commented on the time

consuming nature of the application process for all parties including the applicant, their manager,

the administrator and the panel. The writer wondered about the cost of all the staff time taken to

process the Scheme and whether in fact the cost might exceed the amount paid to the successful

applicants and that perhaps it would be more efficient to simply progress all staff to the upper pay

points. The writer also felt that the criteria were frustratingly limited in scope. A comment was made

about the excellence, motivation and shared vision that can be achieved through team work and

that ultimately the best reward for excellence does not come in the form of financial remuneration

but through the satisfaction of knowing that you are working to the best of your ability.

4.5 Discussion

In 2005 at the time of its creation the Scheme was seen as an appropriate strategy for meeting the

needs of attraction and retention of staff and recognising excellence for staff at the HP3 level who

had limited opportunity for career advancement within a clinical setting. Throughout the life of the

Scheme issues have been identified through each round and the data trends show that in some

workplaces and some professions the criteria are less relevant than in others.

There remains a need, however, to encourage staff to strive for excellence and to recognise those

who achieve results beyond their standard role. There are a variety of mechanisms to do this but

there is room to improve the HP3 Upgrade Scheme in the context of a contemporary workforce.

The Scheme has long been flagged for review and it has not been until now that the resources have

been provided to conduct a facilitated examination of workforce perceptions of the Scheme and

consider all of the issues and options.

The following recommendations are a synthesis of all of the feedback received and reflect a careful

consideration of workable options for the future.


5.0 Recommendations

Recommendation One

Continue the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the Recognition of Excellence with changes as set out at Recommendations 2-7 below:

Rationale: The findings of this review inclusive of feedback over the life of the Scheme, analysis of

the past applicant patterns, the survey results and the focus group discussions indicate that there is a strong desire amongst staff to continue a Recognition of Excellence Scheme in a revised form.

Recommendation Two

Administration of the Scheme, including secretariat function, to be managed by each Directorate and Calvary Health Care Bruce

Rationale: Feedback was received prior to and throughout the review from HP3 staff working in

Directorates other than ACT Health that the current criteria are too focused on the health context and particularly on research. Staff from Community Services Directorate, in particular, sought to have an opportunity to respond to different criteria more related to their roles. The EMG recognised these structural issues and has recommended a way forward that proposes administration of the Scheme be managed by each Directorate and Calvary Health Care Bruce on behalf of their own HP3 staff.

The Chief Allied Health Office has agreed to chair a cross-agency Working Party to support each Directorate and Calvary Health Care Bruce transition to self-administration by 2017.

Recommendations 6 and 7 address the concerns regarding specificity and relevance of criteria.

Recommendation Three

“Eligibility to apply” to be simplified as follows: 1. Applicants will no longer be required to have been at HP3.3 for 12 months before being eligible

to apply; 2. Applicants will no longer be required to be permanently employed. 3. Applicants will be required to have been employed continuously for a minimum 12 month

period with either ACT Government and/or Calvary Health Care Bruce, as at the closing date 30 June.

Rationale: Eligibility to apply under the current Scheme requires officers to be permanently employed at HP3 pay

point 3 and have been at HP3.3 for 12 months prior to applying. These requirements are viewed as

unnecessarily restrictive, are a barrier to recruitment at the HP3 level particularly in terms of attracting applicants from other jurisdictions where pay scales are higher and don’t reflect the current workplace where ongoing temporary contracts are frequently used. Recommendation Three also removes the “jurisdictional equivalence” clause in the current Scheme and with it the structural difficulties of assessing and comparing work level standards between jurisdictions.


Recommendation Four

All potential applicants will be required to have their “eligibility to apply” confirmed by the relevant agency Scheme Secretariat prior to preparing and submitting an application.

Rationale: Recommendation Four is designed to support prospective applicants in the pre-

application phase by requiring them to engage with the Scheme Secretariat to discuss their intended application and to present evidence of their eligibility to apply. Whilst applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the Scheme Secretariat to discuss their application and eligibility this does not always occur and resources are stretched emotionally and time wise when it becomes obvious that the applicant is not eligible to apply.

Recommendation Five

The number of assessment criteria will be reduced from four to two.

Rationale: Recommendation Five seeks to address the finding that the assessment criteria in the

current Scheme are time consuming, difficult to address if a staff member is working in a non-Health

agency, reduce the likelihood of success as an applicant is required to successfully meet all four criteria,

are ambiguous and often duplicate each other. Recommendation 6 details the two new criteria.

Recommendation Six

The revised assessment criteria will comprise one mandatory Directorate/organisational criterion and one mandatory profession based criterion.

Rationale: Building on Recommendation Five above, applicants will be required to address two

mandatory criteria, instead of the current two mandatory and two elective criteria. Operationally the

suggestion that there be different criteria in each Directorate and different criteria for each profession

was not seen as viable as it would fracture the integrity of the Scheme which sits within the context of an

ACT Public Sector Health Professionals Agreement 2013-2017and would also potentially result in

inconsistencies between agencies.

The recommendation therefore is to have two mandatory criteria both of which will be designed to be

capable of being i) addressed by applicants from any of the in-scope Directorates and Calvary Health

Care Bruce and ii) addressed by an applicant from any health profession.


Recommendation Seven

Successful applicants will be advanced directly to HP3.5, removing the current two stage process of advancing initially to HP3.4 and one year later automatically advancing to HP3.5.

Rationale: The current system is a two stage process and administratively challenging. An allowance

mechanism was discussed as was alternate forms of reward and remuneration however upon advice

from the EMG it was agreed that currently, within the context of the prevailing enterprise agreement

that the most efficient method of providing recognition through remuneration was to retain the

restricted pay points but to directly advance successful applicants to HP3.5, from 2016 onwards.


6 Appendices

Appendix A: HP3 Upgrade Scheme Review Newsletter 37

Appendix B: Application Package 2014 38

Appendix C: Explanatory Guide to the Assessment Criteria 2014 47

Appendix D: Guidelines for Referees 2014 64

Appendix E: ACT Health Workforce Policy & Planning Data and 73

Analysis- HP3 employees.


Appendix A: HP3 Upgrade Scheme Review Newsletter


Appendix B:

Application Package 2014

APPLICATION PACKAGE

2014

Health Professional Level 3

Personal Upgrade Scheme

for the



APPLICATION PACKAGE

LIST OF CONTENTS

Application Coversheet Pages 3-4

Application Form

o Part 1: Application Addressing Mandatory Criteria Pages 5-6

o Part 2: Application Addressing Elective Criteria Pages 7-8

Applicant Checklist & Statement Page 9

Application Mailing Instructions Page 1 0


APPLICATION COVERSHEET

2014 HEALTH PROFESSIONAL LEVEL 3 PERSONAL UP-GRADE SCHEME for the

RECOGNITION OF EXCELLENCE

ACT Health Directorate, Calvary Health Care Bruce

Community Services Directorate Justice and Community Safety Directorate

APPLICANT DETAILS

Preferred title:

Family name: Given names (in full):

Address:

(Home or work)

Phone Number:

Work:

Home:

Fax:

Email: (Home or work)

Mobile:

Are you permanently appointed as a Health Professional Level 3? Yes/No

Have you served a minimum of 12 months at

HP3 Pay Point 3, or worked for 3 years as a HP3?

[Any consideration requested for jurisdictional

equivalence should be discussed with the Scheme

Secretariat]

Yes/No

Are you currently subject to an under-performance

process?

Yes/No

Job title:

Profession:


Directorate:

HP3 Position Number:

Duty Statement

Please attach the Duty Statement for your substantive HP3 position as well as an up to date job description.

If the Duty Statement does not adequately reflect the current HP3 duties of your position please attach a

single A4 page listing the main functions of your substantive HP3 position, for example ‘clinical/laboratory

work, teaching, project work, interpretation of legislation, service coordination, health promotion, etc”.

Please ensure that your current supervisor/manager signs off to validate this additional information.

Applicant’s signature: DATE: / / 2014

APPLICATION COVERSHEET

SUPERVISOR / MANAGER SIGN-OFF

Supervisor/manager must sign off and validate THE APPLICANT’S claims in this application.

NB: Supervisor/manager must be at HP4 or above level (or equivalent); If supervisor/manager is acting in the

role, then must have been acting for minimum of 6 months.

Supervisor/Manager Name:

Supervisor/Manager job title:

CONTACT DETAILS OF SUPERVISOR/MANAGER

Address:

Phone number: Fax number: Email:

I confirm that I have read the applicant’s application for the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the

Recognition of Excellence and, having read the applicant’s response to each criterion, I confirm that I have

signed against each response to verify that to the best of my knowledge the claims made by the applicant in

this application reflect the work undertaken by them in their HP3 role, and are true and accurate.


YES /NO

I have signed and validated the applicant’s response to each criterion and support the applicant’s case for a

personal up-grade for professional excellence.

YES /NO

Where No has been indicated, comment must be made: (This may be an attachment) COMMENT..................................………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Have you discussed your comments with the applicant?

YES/NO

NB: Where NO has been indicated, an applicant may still submit an application to the panel for consideration.

Supervisor/Manager’s signature:

Date: / / 2014

REFEREE DETAILS

(cannot be same person as Supervisor/Manager AND must complete the separate Referee Report Form)

Referee Name:

Job Title:

Work contact number: Email:

Relationship of referee to applicant:


PART 1: APPLICATION ADDRESSING THE MANDATORY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

2014 Health Professional Level 3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the Recognition of Excellence

ACT Health Directorate,

Calvary Health Care Bruce Community Services Directorate

Justice and Community Safety Directorate

APPLICANT DETAILS

Preferred title:

Family name: Given names(in full):

Application must be typed.

Where appropriate, dot points may be used.

Evidence must be attached where relevant to validate claims.

MANDATORY CRITERION 1

Extensive specialist or generalist knowledge skills and experience within your area of work, recognised

through a consultant role utilised by peers and other professionals.

(Start response here- one A4 page per criterion recommended)


Supervisor/Manager: I confirm that I have read the applicant’s response to this criterion and that to the best

of my knowledge, the claims made by the applicant against this criterion are true and accurate.

Signature:

Date: / / 2014

PART 2: ELECTIVE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

2014 Health Professional Level 3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the Recognition of Excellence


Calvary Health Care Bruce Community Services Directorate


APPLICANT DETAILS

Preferred title:

Family name: Given names(in full):

Please address ONLY 2 of the elective criteria options.

INSERT FIRST CRITERION NUMBER (Eg EC3 )and CRITERION DESCRIPTION HERE

Application must be typed.

Where appropriate, dot points may be used.

Evidence must be attached where relevant to validate claims.

(Start here - one A4 page per criterion recommended)


Supervisor/Manager: I confirm that I have read the applicant’s response to this criterion and that to the best

of my knowledge, the claims made by the applicant against this criterion are true and accurate.

Signature: Date: / /2014

APPLICANT CHECKLIST & STATEMENT

2014 Health Professional Level 3

Personal Upgrade Scheme for the Recognition of Excellence


Calvary Health Care Bruce

Community Services Directorate


APPLICANT NAME:

I confirm that I have read the Applicant Checklist BELOW and that I have completed each item on the

checklist;

I have read the Scheme Overview and Explanatory Guide to the Assessment Criteria;

Attached a completed Application Coversheet;

Attached a copy of my substantive HP3 position Duty Statement and/or a brief description of the primary functions of my substantive HP3 position (validated by my supervisor/manager);

Attached my completed responses to the 2 Mandatory Criteria ;

Attached my completed responses to TWO ONLY of the Elective Criteria;

Provided my completed application (including evidence) to my supervisor/manager to read;

Obtained my supervisor/manager sign-off and validation of my response to the criteria;

Provided my completed application (including evidence) to my referee to read;

Obtained & attached my referee report including sign-off of my response to the criteria;

Attached relevant documentation and evidence to support my application and responses to the criteria;

Compiled my application as an electronic document in accordance with document submission guidelines, as listed at the weblink below: http://health.act.gov.au/professionals/allied-health/hp3-personal-upgrade-the Scheme

APPLICANT STATEMENT

I confirm that the information contained within this application is :

- Based on my substantive position as an Health Professional Grade 3 (pay point 3 or jurisdictional

http://health.act.gov.au/professionals/allied-health/hp3-personal-upgrade-scheme


equivalent); - Based on experience, skills and knowledge pertaining to my substantive position as per above; - Supported by evidence as per attachments appended to this application; - Supported by my supervisor/manager and by the attached Referee Report; - Based on my completion of the application checklist as per below; - True and correct.

Signature:

Date:: / / 2014

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

2014 Health Professional Level 3 Personal Upgrade Scheme

for Recognition of Excellence



Community Services Directorate


PLEASE EMAIL your application and referee reports in accordance with document submission guidelines

(http://health.act.gov.au/professionals/allied-health/hp3-personal-upgrade-the Scheme)

and forward via email to

[email protected]

CLOSING DATE 5:00PM MONDAY 30TH JUNE 2014

RECEIPT OF APPLICATION

Please indicate below how you would like to have receipt of your application confirmed.

□ By email-please advise preferred email address □ By standard mail to home address

□ By standard mail to other address

http://health.act.gov.au/professionals/allied-health/hp3-personal-upgrade-scheme

mailto:[email protected]


Appendix C:

Explanatory Guide to the Assessment Criteria 2014

EXPLANATORY GUIDE TO THE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

2014



for the



Assessment Criteria

The HP3 Upgrade Scheme requires applicants to:

Address 2 Mandatory Criteria and 2 Elective Criteria

–the latter are selected by the applicant from a list of 10 possible elective criteria.

Obtain supervisor/manager validation of their claims;

Obtain a separate Referee Report in support of their claims.

In total you must address four (4) assessment criteria (2 Mandatory + 2 Elective).

Read and consider each of the ten (10) elective criteria carefully and completely before preparing

your response.

Clearly state your claims against the criterion and substantiate this with examples and evidence that

you attach to your application.

When writing your response, reflect on your contribution to both the immediate service area you

work in and the broader priorities of your agency (See ‘Objectives’ in the Overview document).

As preparation prior to developing an application, it is recommended that you review your Duty

Statement and Selection Criteria as well as the Health Professional Interim Work Level Standards for

Level 3, available at

While a limit on words has not been set, applicants are encouraged to balance succinctness and

brevity with adequate detail when formulating their responses to the criteria.

In general, cases will be strengthened where an ongoing history of meeting the attributes of the core

aspect(s) of a criterion can be evidenced.


General Guide to the Mandatory Criteria:

Applicants must address both Mandatory Criteria.

In answering the assessment criteria, an applicant must be able to demonstrate how they meet the requirements of each criterion and be able to substantiate claims with evidence, including documents which are referenced in and attached to the application.

The Mandatory Criteria relate specifically to Application at the Workplace, as per below.

MANDATORY CRITERION 1 (M1)

Extensive specialist or generalist knowledge skills and experience within your area of work,

recognised through a consultant role utilised by peers and other professionals.

AND

MANDATORY CRITERION 2 (M2)

Development, implementation and evaluation of significant and relevant project(s) or service

change(s) that enhances the efficiency and/or effectiveness of organisational services.


General Guide to the Elective Criteria

In addition to the two Mandatory Criteria, applicants must also address two (2) of the 10 possible

elective criteria, numbered EC1 through to EC10.

Applicants should choose two criteria that best highlight their area of professional excellence as a

HP3 employee and for which they can:

Substantiate their claims with evidence;

Obtain supervisor/manager validation of claims; and

Obtain a referee report that supports and validates claims made.

While these 10 criteria have been clustered under different headings, applicants need

only address 2 of the 10 criteria.

Some cluster headings may include more than 1 elective criterion however applicants

can address any two criteria and do not need to address all criteria listed under a

heading. Applicants are advised to identify 2 of the numbered criteria rather than

focussing on a heading. The headings are only intended to give a quick snapshot of the

areas of professional excellence covered by the Scheme.

An applicant can, for example, choose to address EC2 (listed under Research and

Publication) and EC6 listed under Research and Publications.

Applicants must clearly reference (by number) which two elective criteria they are addressing, e.g.

EC1 and EC 5 and must type in the actual wording of their chosen elective criteria so as to reduce

any possible confusion for the Assessment Panel.

Any applications that fail to clearly reference by number or description the applicant’s chosen

elective criteria may be considered ineligible for consideration as this leaves the Assessment Panel

unsure of the specific criteria the applicant is making claims against.

**Please ensure that none of your supporting evidence includes confidential client information-

applications containing such will NOT be considered by the Panel.


ELECTIVE CRITERIA

PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP

EC1: Proven ability to provide leadership evidenced through mentoring, positively influencing the

culture of the work area, and fostering learning and development in others.

RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION

Research

EC2: Formal presentation of original material to professional peers and colleagues;

EC3: Provision of professionally and employment relevant presentations at industry, educational or

professional conferences and seminars.

Publication

EC4: Publication in peer-reviewed journal(s)/periodical(s) within the last 5 years;

EC5: Publication in major reference works within the last 5 years.

QUALIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT

Qualifications

EC6: Successful completion of additional significant qualifications (further to those required for the

applicant’s current position,) relevant to the area of work for which the applicant is employed



Development

EC7: Advanced specialist or generalist skills and knowledge as formally recognised by the relevant

professional association or industry body;

EC8: Recognition as a specialist in their field through ongoing invitation to participate in peer review

activities.

Teaching and Education

Developer and Facilitator

EC9: Development and implementation of relevant educational programs, to meet identified

learning gaps, such as seminar series, workshops, group supervision, and/or training programs

within the workplace.

Knowledge of Education

EC10: Successful completion of further qualifications in education, and peer recognition of

teaching skills through invitation from Universities or other educational bodies to provide

education/training.

Before attempting to address any of the assessment criteria, applicants should read the

following detailed Explanatory Notes for Addressing Health Professional 3 Personal Up-

Grade Assessment Criteria.

Applicants are also invited and strongly encouraged to discuss their application with the

HP3 Upgrade Scheme Secretariat on 6205 2494 or [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


MANDATORY CRITERIA 1

APPLICATION AT THE WORKPLACE.

M1: Extensive specialist or generalist knowledge, skills and experience within your area of work,


The work level standard for the Health Professional Level 3 expects work at this classification to

include novel, complex or critical work. It outlines that there is technical and professional

responsibility and accountability for work performed.

To achieve recognition of excellence, evidence is sought of an applicant’s specialist or generalist

skills being recognised and utilised by others. The extension of this is evidence of applicants actively

encouraging the access of their specialist or generalist skills by others.

Evidence may include examples of how your specialist or generalist skills are utilised by peers and

other professionals in a consultative capacity and how that is recognised at a local level internal or

external to your workplace, and/or nationally.

Check your Duty Statement to ensure that your examples are not simply a reflection of the standard

requirements/expectations of your position and also ensure that you do not draw upon examples

that relate to positions that you may have acted in. Your examples need to relate to your HP3

position.

Evidence could also include:

Demonstration of professional role modelling in skills acquisition and sharing.

Examples of developing consultant relationships with others, both within your profession and to

other professionals,

Demonstrating how your general or specialist skills are recognised,

Demonstrating how you have developed the clinical reasoning skills, and/or fostered improved

efficiency and effectiveness in solving complex scenarios in others through your example and

knowledge.


MANDATORY CRITERIA 2

APPLICATION AT THE WORKPLACE.

M2: Demonstrate initiation, development, implementation and evaluation of significant and

relevant project(s) or service change(s) that enhance the efficiency and/or effectiveness of

organisational services.

The definition of a project, as used in regard to this criterion, represents any activity that contributes

to the provision of a pilot service and the achievement of the service. This can include both quality

and profession related activities that contribute to the enhancement of your area’s service.

This criterion is about planning and thinking strategically/creatively. It is about your participation,

personally and as part of a team, in all stages of a project or service change including the conception,

planning, management and evaluation of project(s) and/or service change(s), and your ability to

produce outcomes that are consistent with organisational goals.

Evidence of your participation through the entire process from concept to completion, including

evaluation is required. The term ‘significant’ directs applicants to use and attach examples that

demonstrate that their participation is beyond that which would normally be expected for their

position. This can be addressed through evidence of impact or length and complexity,

demonstrating ongoing commitment, of the activity. Activities can relate to improvements in

efficiency as well as those that have a direct positive impact at the service delivery level.

Again evidence of ongoing active participation in the initiation and driving of service enhancement

activities will strengthen an applicant’s case.


ELECTIVE CRITERIA (EC)

Applicants are required to address two (2) out of the ten possible (10) elective criteria. While these

criteria have been clustered under different headings, applicants may choose any combination of 2

elective criteria to address. The headings are only intended to give a quick snapshot of the subject

of the criterion contained under each heading.

Professional Leadership

EC1: Proven ability to provide leadership evidenced through mentoring, positively

influencing the culture of the work area, and fostering learning and development in others.

In this criterion you do not need to possess a formal designation of team leader or like title to

demonstrate leadership skills. This criterion is about your ability to perform as a member of a team

and to demonstrate how you have used your leadership skills positively to promote and influence

direction, projects, staff and work culture from within.

In providing evidence of your leadership skills, consider how the following may be demonstrated:

Your shared vision, direction and goals for your team/work area in the context of the

organisation’s goals and priorities,

Your encouragement of the input of others,

Your focus on achievable and measurable outcomes,

Your mentoring of staff: encourage and reward, appreciate and develop the skills of others,

Your influence on developing/maintaining positive peer relationships,

Your influence on developing trust with the team/work area,

Your ability to plan for the future; recognising its challenges and opportunities,

Your ability to remove present barriers and think outside the square.


Research and Publication

The research and publication criterion enables applicants to be able to demonstrate that they have

provided/presented their work for independent and critical scrutiny by the relevant professional

community, educational or industry organisation, and achieved recognition by doing so.

Research

EC2: Formal presentation of original material to professional peers and colleagues.

The term ‘original’ is key to this criterion and implies that the material an applicant references is

new, unique, or novel. This criterion is to recognise where local research may have been performed,

but the publication process has not yet been undertaken, for whatever reason. The original material

must however be founded on research.

This does not include the reporting back of information obtained at seminars, workshops, lectures or

routine journal reviews or case presentations.

EC3: Provision of professionally and employment relevant presentations at significant conferences

and seminars.

Please note that to meet the standard for this criterion the conferences or seminars used by an

applicant to support their claims must have a scientific selection panel process through which the

material presented at those forums has been assessed.

Documentation must be provided as evidence of this assessment process.


Research and Publication

Publication

EC4: Publication in peer-reviewed journal(s) / periodical(s) within the last 5 years.

A case for recognition of publication in a peer-reviewed journal/periodical beyond the time period

stipulated may be made where an applicant can provide evidence of continued use/reference of the

publication in current journals/periodicals.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to check that the publication/s they wish to include as evidence

have been published in a peer-reviewed publication.

You may choose to include evidence from the editor that the publication is peer reviewed.


As with elective criteria EC5, a case for recognition of publication in major reference works beyond

the time period stipulated may be made where an applicant can provide evidence of continued

use/reference of the work in current publications.

Qualifications and Development

Qualifications

EC6: Successful completion of additional significant qualifications (further to those required for

the applicant’s current position) relevant to the area of work for which the applicant is employed.

While this criterion does not restrict the qualifications to the tertiary sector, any applications for

recognition of additional qualifications that are non-tertiary must include information about the

content/requirement of the course so that the panel can understand fully the value of the

qualification in the workplace. Applicants are strongly encouraged to reference and attach the

course outline to their application. Referees will need to validate the value of this in the workplace.

Any applicant addressing this criterion must attach a copy of the selection criteria outlining the

mandatory minimum qualifications for their current position, as well as proof of the successful

completion of their qualification.


Qualifications and Development

Development


professional association or industry body.

This criterion recognises that some professions have well-established formal processes for

specialisation. These processes may be through professional associations/bodies rather than

through specific educational institutions. Anyone choosing to address this criterion must provide a

description of the specialisation process they have undertaken, including documentation of the

successful completion of the process.

Where a professional requires registration, the gaining of a specialist title that is recognised by the

relevant registration board can be used as evidence against this criterion. The workplace will need

to provide validation that the area of specialisation is relevant to the applicant’s current position.

EC8: Recognition as a specialist in their field through ongoing invitation to participate in peer

review activities.

Peer recognition as a specialist in a field can be demonstrated through evidence of invitation to, and

participation in, a number of professional activities. This may include ongoing invitation to

participate in activities such as the examination of professionals on behalf of a regulatory body, in

your field of practice, for example, in the accreditation or assessment of overseas qualified

professionals seeking to practice in Australia. Another example is an ongoing invitation or honorary

appointment to an educational institution to provide teaching in your field of practice. The

demonstration of the ongoing element of this criterion is important.

It is essential that you include evidence of your claims, for example, letter of appointment

confirming your invitation to participate in a specific activity/role.







Prior to addressing this criterion, review the education development and delivery requirements that

would normally be expected of your current position. In formulating a case consider how the

educational need was identified, how it was addressed through an educational program(s), and the

evaluation of the effectiveness of the program(s). Provide the panel with information and evidence

that illustrates how you have met educational needs in a manner beyond the normal expectation of

your position.

The use of novel and innovative approaches to training/teaching should be noted, as should

evidence of written materials/training packages that have been developed to ensure the continuing

provision/viability of the education program(s), if required. Include evidence of developing teaching

development and delivery skills in others through your example and knowledge.

The educational recipients of programs can include clients, professional peers, undergraduate or

post-graduate students, or those studying courses available through the Vocational Education and

Training (VET) sector.




EC10: Successful completion of further significant qualifications in education, and peer

recognition of teaching skills through invitation from Universities or other educational bodies to

provide education/training.

While criterion 6 addresses the gaining of further qualifications relevant to professional practice, this

criterion is aimed for those individuals that have sought to further their knowledge/qualifications

specifically in the area of education itself.

While this criterion does not restrict the qualifications to the tertiary sector, any applications for

recognition of additional qualifications that are non-tertiary must contain and attach information

about the content/requirement of the course so that the panel can understand fully the value of the

qualification in the workplace. Proof of the successful completion of the qualification must be

provided. Evidence of the recognition of peers of your teaching skills needs to be provided.

End Explanatory Guide to Assessment Criteria

Next pages:

Health Professionals Interim Work Level Standards

HP3 Overview of HP3 Personal Upgrade for Recognition of Excellence


Health Professional Level 3-Interim Work Level Standards

Definition

A Health Professional at this level may perform novel, complex or critical professional work under

professional supervision or may perform normal professional work as a sole practitioner under

general professional guidance.

Description

At this level, staff perform as part of an organisational unit, general professional work or

professional work of a specialised nature and accept technical responsibility and accountability for

these tasks.

In addition to normal professional work, staff may also be expected to perform difficult or novel,

complex or critical professional work under professional supervision, or normal professional work

where they are isolated from immediate professional supervision.

Health Professionals at this level are expected to exercise independent professional judgement

when required in solving problems and managing cases where principles, procedures, techniques

and methods require expansion, adaptation or modification.

Staff may carry out research under professional supervision and may be expected to contribute to

advances of the techniques used.

Work at this level may include supervision and professional supervision of HP Level 2, Level 1 and

undergraduate students.

Professionals at this level may also be required to train HP Level 1 and HP Level 2 staff with respect

to the professional work performed by the organisational unit.

Extract from ACT Health, Health Professionals Interim Work Level Standards


Procedural & Responsibility Arrangements for HP3 Personal Up-grade Scheme for Recognition of Excellence

MANAGER/SUPERVISOR

Support training and development, where possible

Assess application critically

Provide validation of application, including each assessment criteria

Submit Application to:

HP3 Upgrade Scheme

Office of Allied Health Adviser

GPO Box 825 (L2, 11 Moore St),

Canberra City ACT 2601

Secretariat to coordinate

Receipt of applications

Convene Panels

Notification of results

ASSESSMENT PANEL

Assess application against standard

Provides recommendation to delegates.

Provides brief feedback where application unsuccessful

APPLICANT

Read documentation regarding the HP3 up-grade the Scheme.

Proactively use performance management systems

Discuss application with supervisor/manager

Give referee at least one month’s notice

If previously unsuccessful, discuss feedback with supervisor/manager

The referee and manager/supervisor

role may not be held by the same

person


REFEREES

Read Guide for Referees

Complete Referee’s Form

Provide copy of report to applicant a week prior to close of application date at the latest

DELEGATES

Allied Health Advisor

General Manager (or equivalent) of division

Page 64 of 75

Appendix D:

Guidelines for Referees 2014

GUIDELINES FOR REFEREES

2014



for the


Page 65 of 75

Dear Referee,

Thank you for agreeing to provide a referee report on behalf of this applicant.

Before you commence, please note that if you have already been required to sign-off the candidate’s

application and responses to the 4 assessment criteria in your role as supervisor/manager you

cannot also be a referee.

If this is the case please advise the candidate immediately so that they can seek an alternate referee.

It is essential that the content of the referee’s report reflect the contribution of the applicant at the

current substantive level. If the applicant is currently acting in a higher position, then the content

needs to reflect activities undertaken at the substantive level and not at the level being acted in.

Assessment of the applicant by the Assessment Panel will be undertaken in terms of their

contribution to both the immediate service area they work in and the broader priorities of the

agency. Panels may consult with a referee for clarification/verification of aspects of an application in

order to make an assessment or recommendation.

In preparing to write a referee’s report it is recommended that all referees review the Health

Professional Interim Work Level Standards for Level 3.

It is also required that the referee read the candidate’s application prior to completing their referee

report.

Referees reports must be typed on the 2014 Referee Form and whilst a limit on words has not been

set, succinctness and brevity in addressing criteria will assist the panel. Comment must be made by

the referee on the four criteria addressed by the applicant in their application and must be the

referee’s independent opinion.

In general, cases will be strengthened where you as referee can provide support of an ongoing

history of the candidate meeting the attributes of the core aspect(s) of a criterion.

Page 66 of 75

MANDATORY CRITERIA: APPLICATION AT THE WORKPLACE.

MC1: Extensive specialist or generalist knowledge, skills and experience within your area of work,


The work level standard for the Health Professional Level 3 expects work at this classification to

include novel, complex or critical work. It outlines that there is technical and professional

responsibility and accountability for work performed.

Evidence is sought from referees of an applicant’s specialist or generalist skills being recognised and

utilised by others, and of the applicant actively encouraging the access and transfer of their specialist

or generalist skills to others.

MC2: Demonstrate initiation, development, implementation and evaluation of significant and

relevant project(s) or service change(s) that enhance the efficiency and/or effectiveness of

organisational services.

This criterion is about planning and thinking strategically/creatively. It is about the applicant’s

participation in the conception, planning, management and evaluation of project(s) and/or service

change(s), and the ability to produce outcomes that are consistent with organisational goals.

The term ‘significant’ directs the use of examples that demonstrate participation through all stages

of a project. This can be addressed through evidence of impact or length and complexity,

demonstrating ongoing commitment, of the activity. Activities can relate to improvements in

efficiency as well as those that have a direct positive impact at the service delivery level.

Page 67 of 75

ELECTIVE CRITERIA: APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS TWO ELECTIVE CRITERIA (out of possible 10)

PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP

EC1: Proven ability to provide leadership evidenced through mentoring, positively influencing the

culture of the work area, and fostering learning and development in others.

This criterion is about the applicant’s ability to perform as a member of a team and to demonstrate

the used of leadership skills positively to promote and influence direction, projects, staff and work

culture from within.

As a referee you should consider how the following is demonstrated by the applicant:

- A shared vision, direction and goals for the team/work area in the context of the

organisation’s goals and priorities,

- Encouragement of the input of others,

- A focus on achievable and measurable outcomes,

- The mentoring of staff: encourages and rewards, appreciates and develops the skills of

others,

- The applicant’s influence on developing/maintaining positive peer relationships,

- The applicant’s influence on developing trust with the team/work area

- The ability to plan for the future; recognising its challenges and opportunities,

- The ability to remove present barriers and think outside the square.


This criterion allows an applicant to demonstrate that they have provided their work for

independent and critical scrutiny by the relevant professional community, educational or industry

organisation, and achieved recognition by doing so.

Research

EC2: Formal presentation of original material to professional peers and colleagues

The term original is key to this criterion and implies that the material presented by the applicant is

new, unique, or novel. This criterion is to recognise where local research may have been performed,

but the publication process not undertaken, for whatever reason; the original material must

however be founded on research. What this does not include is the reporting back of information

obtained at seminars, workshops, lectures or routine journal reviews or case presentations.

Page 68 of 75


Research

EC3: Provision of professionally and employment relevant presentations at significant

conferences and seminars.

Please note that in order for an applicant to meet the standard of this criterion the conferences or

seminars used to support their case must have a scientific selection panel process through which the

material presented at those forums are assessed.

Publication

EC4: Publication in peer-reviewed journal(s)/periodical(s) within the last 5 years.


For criteria EC4 and EC5, an applicant may make a case beyond the time period stipulated where

there is evidence of continued use/reference of the work in current publications or major reference

works. An applicant does not need to address both criteria just because they are listed under the

same heading-they elect to respond to just one criterion if preferred.


Qualifications

EC6: Successful completion of additional significant qualifications (further to those required for

the applicant’s current position) relevant to the area of work for which the applicant is employed.

Page 69 of 75

As referee please explain or provide evidence for how the further qualification is relevant to the

applicant’s substantive position.

Development


professional association or industry body.

As referee please explain or provide evidence for the relevance of the advanced specialist or

generalist skills to the applicant’s substantive position.


Development

EC8: Recognition as a specialist in their field through ongoing invitation to participate in peer

review activities.

Peer recognition may include ongoing invitation to participate in activities such as the examination

of professionals on behalf of a regulatory body, in the applicant’s field of practice, for example, in

the accreditation or assessment of overseas qualified professionals seeking to practice in Australia.

Another example is an ongoing invitation or honorary appointment to an educational institution to

provide teaching in the applicant’s field of practice.

As referee it is important for you to provide evidence or confirm the applicant’s claims against the

ongoing element of this criterion.

TEACHING AND EDUCATION





Page 70 of 75

Prior to addressing this criterion, a referee should review the education development and delivery

requirements that would normally be expected of the applicant’s current substantive position.

Consider how the educational need was identified, how it was addressed through an educational

program(s), and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the program(s). Please provide the panel with

information and evidence that illustrates how the educational needs were met in a manner beyond

the normal expectation of the applicant’s position. The educational recipients of programs can

include clients, professional peers, undergraduate or post-graduate students, or those studying

courses available through the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector.


EC10: Successful completion of further significant qualifications in education, and peer

recognition of teaching skills through invitation from Universities or other educational bodies to

provide education/training.

While criterion 6 addresses the gaining of further qualifications relevant to professional practice, this

criterion is aimed for those individuals that have sought to further their knowledge in education

itself. From a referee the assessment panel is looking for an explanation of the relevance of the

further qualification achieved by the applicant to their current substantive position and verification

of recognition from the applicant’s peers with regards their teaching skills.

REFEREE REPORT

Page 71 of 75

2014 Health Professional Level 3 Personal Upgrade Scheme

for the Recognition of Excellence


Community Services Directorate,

Justice and Community Safety Directorate,


MANDATORY CRITERION 1: APPLICATION AT THE WORKPLACE:

Extensive specialist or generalist knowledge skills and experience within your area of work, recognised

through a consultant role utilised by peers and other professionals.

COMMENT: Referee to type comments below

MANDATORY CRITERION 2: APPLICATION AT THE WORKPLACE:

Development, implementation and evaluation of significant and relevant project(s) or service change(s) that

enhance the efficiency and/or effectiveness of organisational services.

COMMENT: Referee to type comments below

ELECTIVE CRITERION - insert criteria number and description here.

COMMENT: Please insert your response below:

ELECTIVE CRITERION - insert criteria number and description here.

COMMENT: Please insert your response below:

Page 72 of 75

Referee Statement:

I confirm that I have read the applicant’s application for the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the

Recognition of Excellence and have also read the attached Guidelines for Referees document. Having read the

applicant’s response to each criterion, I confirm that I have signed against each response to indicate that to

the best of my knowledge the claims made by the applicant in this application reflect work undertaken by

them in their HP3 role, and are true and accurate.

REFEREE SIGNATURE:

DATE: / / 2014

CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS INCLUDING REFEREE REPORTS:

5:00PM MONDAY 30TH JUNE 2014

It is the applicant’s responsibility to forward your original referee report (with signature) along with

their application and it is the applicant’s responsibility to mail their complete application by the

above closing date to:

Office of the Chief Allied Health Office

Attn: Sally Ranford

Level 2, 11 Moore Street (GPO Box 825)

Canberra City ACT 2601

I f you are submitting a referee report after the applicant has handed in their application please

ensure that the a signed copy of your report reaches the Office of the Chief Allied Health Officer by

the closing date of Monday 30th June 2014.

Need More Information?

Contact Sally Ranford on 6205 2494 or mail to: [email protected]

mailto:mail%20to:%[email protected]

73 Review into the HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the Recognition of Excellence

Appendix E:

ACT Health Workforce Policy & Planning

Data and analysis: HP3 employees

423 people are currently employed as HP3s by ACT Health (41% of HPs are classified as HP3)

369 (87%) of HP3s are permanent employees, 13% are temporary or casual employees

96 HP3 employees exited ACT Health between July 2012 and July 2014.

Permanent HP3s

Of the 40 HP3s that exited in 2012-13, 26 (65%) were permanent employees)

Of the 56 HP3s that exited in 2013-14, 34 (60.5%) were permanent employees)

The percentage of permanent HP3s leaving each year has dropped steadily from 12.77% in

2010 to 8.56% in 2013 (see Table 1)

The average headcount of permanent HP3s in ACT Health rose by 64 positions between

2010 and 2013. (See Table 2)

The proportion of permanent HPs who are classified as HP3 rose by 1.76%% between 2010

and 2014(See Table 3).

The average number of permanent HPs increased by 16% from 2010 to 2014 (110 additional

HPs), this included a 21% increase in permanent HP3s.

Table 1: Percentage of permanent HP3 exits from 2010-2013


Table 2: Headcount of permanent HP3 employees 2010-2013

Table 3: HP3s as a percentage of HP classifications 2010-2013

Temporary & Casual HP3s

Of the 40 HP3s that exited in 2012-13, 13 (32.5%) were temporary employees and 1 (2.5%)

were casual employees

Of the 56 HP3s that exited in 2012-13, 16 (28.5%) were temporary employees and 6 (10.5%)

were casual employees


HP3 Exit Survey Findings

Of the 96 HP3 employees that exited ACT Health between July 2012 and July 2014, 24 (25%)

completed a voluntary exit survey

Of the 24 responses:

18 (75%) were from permanent employees and 6 (25%) were from temporary employees

Key exit data in reference to HP3 leaving reasons is:

48% left to pursue promotion/new employment opportunities

40% identified salary as another reason for leaving

40% stated they were moving to work in the private sector

Other findings

83% identified ACT Health as a good to excellent employer and 95% would be happy to work here again

21 people identified their profession, of those, 38% (8) were psychologists.

62.5% were leaving permanent positions

33% were in the 30-35 year age range and 25% in the 50-59 year age range

69.5% had been employed by ACT Health for less than 6 years, including 43.4% employed for less than 3 years and 13% for more than 15 years.

Analysis

This data provides an overall picture of increasing retention of permanent HP3s in ACT Health, but a

higher loss of HP3s employed in temporary and casual contracts.

There are no indications that decisions to exit are influenced by the HP3 Upgrade Scheme.

While only 13% of HP3s are temporary or casual employees, about 30% of HP3s exiting ACT Health

are temporary or casual employees. Many will relate to planned ending of short term contracts, but

there could also be dissatisfaction amongst HP3s employed on a temporary basis and a preference

to move to permanent (more secure) roles elsewhere.

The data indicates that HP3 employees are increasing as a total percentage of permanent Health

professional employees and that numbers of HP3s are increasing across ACT Health.

This suggests that permanent HP3s are being retained at a healthy level and are growing within ACT

Health. This may indicate that caution is required to ensure that the HP skill-mix does not become

unbalanced and exceed the level required to deliver services efficiently.

Cathy Watson, September 2014

Workforce Policy & Planning Initiatives Coordinator

Workforce Policy and Planning

ACT Health Directorate

End of Report

Documents

ACT Health - HP3 Personal Upgrade Scheme for the ...€¦ · The Health Professional Classification Level 3 Personal Upgrade for the Recognition of Excellence Scheme was conceived