A hospital reduces the cost per patient by 10% but waiting times increase and patient satisfaction falls. Which of the three Es has it improved, and which has it harmed?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: D. Improved efficiency but harmed effectiveness
- Step 1: Lower cost per patient indicates improved efficiency.
- Step 2: Longer waits and lower satisfaction mean the objectives are less well met, which is poorer effectiveness.
- Step 3: Cutting cost is not enough if outcomes suffer.
Answer
Improved efficiency but harmed effectiveness.
Why not the others: Effectiveness has fallen because aims such as satisfaction and waiting times have worsened. Improved economy but harmed efficiency: Efficiency (cost per patient) is what improved here. The service is not achieving its objectives as well, so effectiveness has not improved.
Practise more Performance measurement.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed ACCA Applied Knowledge (BT, MA, FA) mock tests.
More Performance measurement questions
- A division has operating profit of £240,000 and capital employed of £1,200,000. The group's cost of capital is 15%. What are the division's…
- A division earns an ROI of 22% and the group requires 15%. A new project would earn 18% on its investment. Which statement is correct?
- Why is residual income often preferred to ROI for assessing the performance of divisional managers?
- Which of the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard is concerned with how well the organisation innovates and develops its people and s…
- In value for money (VFM) terms, which of the three Es refers to achieving the intended results and objectives?
- A company compares its processes with those of the best performer in a different industry. What type of benchmarking is this?