Article

Year-end home-service caseload relative to reported workforce in Central Saudi Arabia: an exploratory reconstruction of Ministry of Health administrative records for 2024

Authors

  • Salah Al Awaidy
    • Oman Ministry of Health, Muscat, Oman
  • Saleh Ahmed
    • Quaid-E-Azam International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Samata Nepal
    • Lumbini Medical College, Palpa 32500, Nepal
  • Samuel Baz
    • Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science College of Medicine, Los Angeles, United States
  • Sana Sharif Sheikh
    • University of Saskatchewan School of Public Health, Saskatoon, Canada

Multidisciplinary Healthcare Journal Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) Published

Open access CC BY 4.0
Article language: العربية
Download PDF · العربية View original
View full text
Cite

Cite this article

Al Awaidy, S., Ahmed, S., Nepal, S., Baz, S., & Sheikh, S. S. (2025). Year-end home-service caseload relative to reported workforce in Central Saudi Arabia: an exploratory reconstruction of Ministry of Health administrative records for 2024. Multidisciplinary Healthcare Journal, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.68608/sprw1v24 (Original work published 2026)
Share

Abstract

Background: Annual home-service counts can describe the relationship between recorded caseload and reported workforce, but their interpretation depends on the time reference, service boundaries and denominator. Saudi recipient, caregiver and workforce studies show that homecare encompasses different clinical populations and care arrangements. The present analysis examines Central Saudi Arabia within a transparent national comparison, without treating a caseload-to-headcount ratio as individual workload, service quality or population access.

Methods: An exploratory descriptive reconstruction used the Ministry of Health (MOH) Statistical Yearbook 2024, Table 4-67. Seventeen source rows were mapped to thirteen administrative regions using the workbook's official service-area crosswalk. A published five-region analytical grouping was retained separately. Central comprised Riyadh and Qassim. Compatible counts were summed before calculating year-end cases per reported worker, year-end cases divided by cumulative recorded beneficiaries, and the difference between each broad region's national case share and worker share. Source counts were reconciled against the official total row. No sampling confidence intervals, significance tests, clinical outcomes or staffing adequacy thresholds were introduced.

Results: Central had 60 reporting hospitals, no separately reported home centers, 730 reported workers, 12,440 cases under service at year end and 15,999 cumulative beneficiaries at year end. The aggregate caseload-to-worker ratio was 17.04 and the recorded active-to-cumulative ratio was 77.75%. Riyadh recorded 8,165 cases and 494 workers, giving 16.53 cases per worker; Qassim recorded 4,275 cases and 236 workers, giving 18.11. Central's share of national year-end cases was 5.15 percentage points below its share of reported workers. The national compatible counts were 58,445 cases and 2,761 workers.

Conclusions: Central's recorded caseload and workforce can be reconstructed reproducibly from the source table. Differences between Riyadh and Qassim and between the five broad regions merit source-definition review. The records do not establish staff time, clinical intensity, unmet need, quality, efficiency or patient outcomes.

Declarations

Ethics approval
NA
Consent to participate
NA
Consent for publication
NA
Funding
NA
Competing interests
NA
Author contributions
NA
Data availability
NA
Registration
NA
Acknowledgements
NA

Comments

Commenting requires an account and sign-in.