The cost of an established quality assurance programme: is it worth it?

Although the literature concerning quality assurance (QA) is voluminous, little information exists about the costs or benefits of departmentally based QA programmes. We measured the direct costs and then investigated the financial and nonfinancial benefits derived from a well-funded QA programme over a period of five years. Data were obtained from departmental budgets, annual reports of the QA programme, and several databases used by the programme. The average annual cost was $79,900, with salaries being the largest component, while $14,300 each year were recovered through the activities of the programme. True costs were higher than those calculated since time volunteered by medical staff and resources shared with other programmes could not be determined. Some of the costs encountered at the outset of this programme were later offset by the use of commercial software and employment of volunteers and casual staff. Fifty-three projects were identified over the five-year period. Most lacked directly measurable financial outcomes (because they were based on education, research, patient or practitioner satisfaction). The benefit of the programme has been greater to the department than suggested from cost analysis alone. Although this programme could not be justified on a simple cost recovery basis, the authors felt it to be worthy of continued support because of the nonfinancial benefits. However, modification is required to minimize costs.