Health Quality Ontario Employee Reviews about "hqo"

Pros

A large group of intelligent, hard working individuals with end-goal objectives of making Health Care System improvements for all. Communication is second to none, as the CEO provides weekly updates, and most often, so do individual VP's, Directors and branch managers. An all-staff meeting takes place on a regular monthly basis. Wages are in line with other government agencies as well as benefits and vacation time. I am currently on contract with the hopes of becoming a FTE one day. It truly is a great place to be with the end goals in line with my own personal beliefs.

Cons

With no fault of HQO management, the corporation spans across 4 office buildings, however, now that the good weather is here, the walk helps clear the mind and allow one to obtain some fresh air and exercise. Staff are moved around quite a bit to accommodate restructure of branches.

Pros

I worked at Health Quality Ontario from its inception in 2011 until Dec 2016. During that time, the organization matured into its mandate to be the province's advisor on quality (per the Excellent Care for All Act). In my experience, the people were deeply caring and committed (to one another and to the vision); the work was fulfilling, and our contributions to improving the quality of health care were substantive. Were the early days of HQO tumultuous? Of course. It was a new organization formed in response to new legislation (ECFAA), and was created from the convergence of 5 legacy teams, each of which had its own mandate and culture. It is not surprising that we experienced a period of instability. Did we make mistakes along the way? Most definitely – we all did, at all levels – but it was never from any sort of malicious intent, and led to learning. Through the perseverance of thoughtful leaders and staff, we moved forward. Attention to improving organizational culture, establishing internal and external relationships, and increasing clarification of our role within the larger context of health care were, from my experience, some of the factors that lead to change. It saddens me read some of the postings on Glassdoor. I would encourage those who are continuing to struggle with the culture to connect with their leadership team and engage in a productive conversation. You might be pleasantly surprised by the response. Respectfully submitted, Susan Taylor

Cons

The mandate is broad, and the work is important. It can be difficult to balance all demands and stay nimble enough to respond to emerging issues.

Pros

- Educated staff; many folks are overqualified for the role - Meaningful work; HQO has the opportunity to lead meaningful work in the health sector - Organization is trying to turn things around with employee engagement

Cons

- Depressing environment; there pervasive feeling of isolation and lack of team - Direct supervisors are imbalanced on their focus on managing up as opposed to investing time and resources to developing capacity of employees and supporting their programs - Culture of "Just do it" with little room for negotiation or understanding; people are busy running around with "make work" projects / duplicated work. There is little support / time investment to look at the existing processes and reduce the duplication/"busy work." Status quo seems to be the most preferred option for employees who have already been / seen a lot of change - This is a seniority based, not a merit based organization. People who have been with the organization longer have differential treatment by supervising manager in both social and professional aspects - work life balance varies; but when the balance is off, it is often due to busy work to appease someone. Because there isn't that upfront investment to understand why you are doing the work, it appears as mostly "busy work"

Pros

Potentiall to do some really good and fulfilling work

Cons

The challenges of working here are too numerous to mention. There is blatant favoritism, which upper management does not even make an effort to hide. You get promoted based on whether you talk a good talk, and know the right people, rather than whether you actually do good work. The new management takes advice regarding staffing and projects from people they have known at other roles in other organizations, and that advice is not necessarily accurate or in the best interests of HQO. This place has had 4 CEOs in 4 years! Current upper management seems to hire a lot of friends and acquaintances, rather than hiring based on actual skills and merit. The turnover rate is astounding, both voluntary, and involuntary. The waste of dollars that goes into packages for restructuring is likely enormous. Morale is at rock bottom, with constant staffing changes, and direction of projects changing daily, hence making for a lot of errors and loss of productivity in an organization that is supposedly all about quality. One goes to work for the day wondering if today will be the last......There is constant infighting and struggles for control between departments, and no sense of teamwork.

Pros

If you're thinking of working at HQO please try and talk with staff. There is clearly huge resentment on this site, but I'm convinced it's coming from one or maybe a few employees. I would bet from the patterns that it's someone passed over for promotion or maybe someone who was fired. This seems to be their outlet through posting multiple reviews, which is easy to do. I'm really not sure why someone would stay here if they're so bitter. They are certainly reading this, so please look for something that makes you happier. The negative reviews have some pretty clear patterns to them, but decide that for yourself. Just question the rants and even (diplomatically) ask about them if interviewed. I'm very happy here and I think the majority of staff are too. The leadership is generally strong and thoughtful and they make real attempts to be open and fair. I'm not one of them and won't be posting multiple reviews, for whatever that's worth. Other staff seem to be posting now and hopefully that continues.

Cons

We do need more space. There are some teams that are struggling with management and culture, but if you work hard and are a reasonable team member you should do well here.

Pros

- Competitive salary, good benefits, TTC-accessible location - The mandate/vision of the company is inspiring, so it's satisfying to contribute to the work - Generally people are friendly. Less petty office politics compared to other organizations I have worked for, but HQO is relatively small

Cons

- It is very obvious that some managers/team leads/senior analysts are only in their position because they have been there longer than anyone else, or are a favourite of the manager/director. It is not uncommon for junior staff or new hires to have more experience than the person one to two levels above them. Once they realize this, they tend to leave - General lack of technical expertise where it counts most. A lot of time and taxpayer money are wasted doing things manually, and no one bothers to try and improve things. - For such a small organization, the lack of transparency regarding decisions about timelines and projects is high.

Pros

Constant restructuring, and stalling of projects. Consistent pay as you will not get a raise|!

Cons

Restructuring is a constant theme at HQO, and has achieved peak levels under the current leadership. As of late, many new positions have been created or are in the process of being created in at least some departments, mostly managers, directors, VPs, and the like. These positions for the most part are very highly paid, and apparently require very little training or experience – however, the roles do require that one be obsequious. The ability to pontificate ad nauseam is also a highly desired quality. Unfortunately with these prerequisites, many staff are left behind. Most HQO staff have received meagre or no wage increases in years due to wage freezes, but apparently this freeze does not apply to those selected for promotion into the many new leadership roles that are being unnecessarily created.

Pros

Strong commitment to organizational colour. Excellent shopping for those with executive salaries within the vicinity.

Cons

Focusing on ‘never events’ has at best demonstrated an incremental improvement in health care. After five years, it is time that Health Quality Ontario starts to get its hands dirty by actually addressing the issues that have demonstrated value, improved quality of care and bolstered patient outcomes. Ontario does not need more standards developed, should not be acting as a policy advisor to the Ministry (doing so is neither within HQO’s wheelhouse nor its mandate), and passive key performance indicators without their being matched to actual outcomes. While published two years ago, the strategy to fix health care proposed by Michael Porter and Thomas Lee should be required reading before HQO releases its forthcoming 2016-2019 business plan. Finally, given that Health Quality Ontario, a publicly-funded organization that has been subject to pay restraint, has yet to demonstrate any success in delivering on its mandate, HQO’s compensation policy for “executive and senior professional roles” should give Ontarians pause.

Pros

In fairness to some of the previous (albeit alarmist) posters, HQO hasn’t always been high-functioning. But that has changed in a big way in recent years, and it certainly is not too little/too late. All employees have above-average exposure to the CEO/senior management, all of whom are highly dedicated, well-respected, and thoughtful people. Salary is competitive. Professional development is seen as a priority, within budgetary constraints of any public sector agency. Staff are engaged and happy despite what some of the previous posters would have you believe. The work is stimulating and rewarding, and, if you are stuck, management is there to help you succeed. Great location.

Cons

Office space is limited. Coffee is bad to terrible.

Pros

HQO's compensation is skewed toward giving competitive compensation for "executive and senior professional roles and particularly to those organizations where there are direct competitors for specialty skill and experience from the health care sector."

Cons

Apparently, this pay policy for executives is irrespective of previous earnings, achievements, or abilities as a little internet searching will reveal. Rather, HQO executive pay should follow the lead of hospital CEOs and have a significant portion of their salary locked in a bonus tied to delivering on HQO's mandate. These metrics should not be media presence, website visits, or re-tweets, but actually demonstrating that every decision HQO makes and every action HQO takes improves the quality of health in Ontario.