$78,053 in Roster Savings - 23 Andrews RD
This review follows the examination of a house with three participants, Ali, Ming and Peter.
Please note that names, addresses, and exact amounts have been changed for privacy purposes.
INITIAL ANALYSIS
This combined weekly funding amount for this house is $18,932. Upon investigation, we identified that the claimable roster cost of the service was averaging $21,037 (actual staff cost was $14,978), significantly overservicing compared to the available budget, by $2,105 per week.
The claimable roster cost is the hours of support multiplied by the applicable hourly rate as opposed to the staff cost which is the actual cost paid to staff as wages.
It was also noted that the claiming for this house was not accurate, two participants were being overclaimed while the third was underclaimed. This is a situation which we see commonly, where not only the overall claiming is an issue but the individual claiming for each participant is also problematic. If the overclaiming continued it would mean that the participants would exhaust their plans seven and nine weeks prior to their plan end date.
ROSTER REVIEW
After sharing the analysis with the service provider we met with the Client Services team to discuss the roster.
After reviewing the rosters it was identified that the active overnight shift was potentially able to be changed to a sleepover shift. There was some reservation from the team leader so in this instance we put into place a process whereby we tracked the activities overnight. Following the review period, it was agreed that we were able to adjust the roster, including some small tweaks during the day which meant it was now in line with the funding available.
CLAIM ADJUSTMENT
Once we had the roster in place we ensured that we aligned the weekly claims with the support being provided, ensuring that each participant was now being claimed for correctly, mitigating the exhaustion risk moving forward.
As can be seen in the table below, as a result of the new roster being implemented we were able to reduce the actual staff cost by $1,497 per week.