Guidance

Assessors' guide: 2024 awards round

Published 28 March 2024

Applies to England and Wales

About this guide

This guide is for scorers of the national Clinical Impact Awards (NCIAs). It covers the 2024 competition in England and Wales and tells you:

• how the award scheme works
• who is eligible to apply
• how the application and assessment processes work
• how to score an individual application

Read this guide before you start scoring your allocated applications. New assessors may also find it useful to read the applicants’ and employers’ guides for further background information on the scheme and information on transitional and reversion arrangements.

You should find everything you need to help you on the ACCIA guidance collection page.

If you have any questions that are not covered, contact us at [email protected].

If you’re based in Wales, you’ll find anything extra you need to know in the boxes throughout this guide.

Timetable for the 2024 awards

The 2024 awards round closes at 5pm on 15 April 2024.

The first round of scoring will start shortly after, between 16 April and 9 June 2024. View the full indicative timetable for the 2024 national awards round.

ACCIA will email assessors with the exact dates for regional sub-committee meetings.

Part 1: introduction

About ACCIA and the Clinical Impact Awards scheme

The Advisory Committee on Clinical Impact Awards (ACCIA) runs the national Clinical Impact Awards (NCIAs) scheme for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in England. ACCIA also provides governance for the awards for the Welsh Government.

Health ministers have agreed a limited number (up to 600) of new awards each year in England, so the selection process is very competitive. Three levels of award are available in England, from lowest to highest:

• National 1 (N1)
• National 2 (N2)
• National 3 (N3)

In Wales a lower level, National 0 (N0), also exists.

The awards last for 5 years and have an annual, non-pensionable value of:

• £10,000 (N0)
• £20,000 (N1)
• £30,000 (N2)
• £40,000 (N3)

A consultant can apply for a new award at any time after completing a full year in an eligible role, on 1 April in the award year in which they are applying. If a consultant already holds a national Clinical Excellence Award (NCEA), transitional arrangements apply in England between the old and new schemes.

We run the scheme fairly and openly, offering every applicant an equal opportunity, and we consider all applications on merit. We include our analysis of each year’s competition in our annual report. 

What the national scheme rewards

The national awards are granted by ministers to recognise and retain consultant doctors, dentists and academic GPs who deliver national impact above the expectations of their job role or other paid work. Applicants need to give evidence of impact across 5 domains: 

1. delivering and developing a high-quality service
2. leadership
3. education, training and people development
4. innovation and research
5. other areas of national impact, with specific reference to NHS priorities where relevant

In all domains, ACCIA encourages applicants to provide evidence of national impact relating to equality, diversity and inclusion.

These 5 domains are explained below in part 5 of this guide.

We do not give awards for stand-alone overseas work. Work in other countries is unlikely to be directly relevant for an award, so is not considered on its own. Overseas work that has demonstrably helped the NHS and the health of the public directly or has had a direct reputational benefit for the NHS overseas may be supported if the evidence clearly describes this.

Regional sub-committees

Regional sub-committee groups assess applications for national awards for most applicants in their area. Based on application workload, and to provide balance and a degree of external scrutiny across these committees, we reallocate some sub-committee members to score in other regions.

There are 13 regional ACCIA sub-committees in England:

• Cheshire and Mersey
• East of England
• East Midlands
• London North East
• London North West
• London South
• North East
• North West
• South
• South East
• South West
• West Midlands
• Yorkshire and Humber

There are separate sub-committees for:

• DHSC and arm’s length bodies (ALBs)
• assessing the highest-scoring regional applicants for N3 awards - N3 committee
• re-scoring applicants whose regional scores are tied at the lower cut-off ranking point for N1 and N2 award levels, and any applicants where questions arise through governance review - National Reserve Sub-committee (NRES)

Wales has its own sub-committees.

The sub-committees consider all applications in their area except for those from public health consultants and academic GPs contracted by the UK Health Security Agency and NHS England. These are assessed by DHSC or ALB sub-committee where they can be benchmarked more easily.

Sub-committee members are volunteers that come from a range of backgrounds with experience and expertise in many different areas. They assess and score applications independently based only on the information on the form.

Each sub-committee is typically made up of:

• 50% medical and dental professionals
• 25% non-medical professionals and lay members
• 25% employers

Each regional sub-committee is allocated an indicative number of awards at each level. This is based on the number of national awards available proportionately distributed based on the number of applications received that year in each region. This means there is an equal chance of achieving an NCIA in any region.

See part 4 for the assessment process.

Local awards and commitment awards

ACCIA does not have any say in local awards in England or commitment awards in Wales. Presently, local and national awards cannot be held at the same time.

Running an open, transparent scheme

More information about ACCIA and the NCIA scheme can be found on our website, including:

• a list of all national award holders
• personal statements from people who have received a new award
• the members of our main committee and our sub-committees
• annual reports about each awards round
• a guide for applicants - with a supporting ‘quick guide’
• a guide for employers

Disability

In line with the Equality Act 2010, employers must consider making reasonable adjustments for employees with disabilities. These are changes to things such as equipment or processes to make sure people with disabilities can do their job.

If an applicant has a disability, where relevant, any reasonable adjustments they have agreed with their employer should be explained in the job plan section of the application form. Employers may add explanations about any disabilities or other relevant aspects in their comments.

We treat all applications equally and use the same scoring criteria for everyone.

Extenuating circumstances

Applicants should let us know as soon as possible before the closing date if there are extenuating circumstances that they feel may affect their ability to submit a successful application. This is so we can provide support and make sure the application is considered fairly.

We cannot take any extenuating circumstances into account during assessment after the application closing date and once scoring has started.

Each case is treated on its own merits, and the outcomes from each are based on the rules relating to the current scheme. If a consultant applies for an award and believes there are extenuating circumstances, these can be described in the job plan, personal statement and/or the relevant domains of the application form.

It can be difficult for applicants to share personal information. We expect assessors to treat any such information with respect and in confidence.

Pay careful attention to applications where a consultant’s circumstances and job plan have changed during the course of the 5-year assessment period. Applicants are strongly encouraged to be precise about the timing of any such changes in working pattern, and to provide dates for the achievements that they are presenting for assessment. For example, an applicant may describe periods of absence, perhaps due to maternity leave or ill health during the relevant 5-year period. In such cases, you should consider work done over a more prolonged time period when assessing the application, but in no circumstances can evidence presented in a previous successful application be credited a second time.

Transitional arrangements

Following the introduction of a new NCIA scheme from 2022, existing NCEA holders are subject to prior NCEA rules for their awards and tenure. There is a transitional period based on previously agreed schedule 30 arrangements for NCEA holders applying for a first new award. More information about transitional arrangements can be found in the applicants’ or employers’ guide on the ACCIA guidance collection page.

Anyone awarded an NCIA by ACCIA’s main committee, whether affected by schedule 30 transition or not, is considered to be successful in gaining an award. This applies irrespective if outcomes have been communicated. Holders of existing NCIAs are obliged to give up any unexpired NCEA or NCIA, even if the new award is at a lower level. A new successful NCIA application takes precedence over an existing NCEA or NCIA award. In this case, the existing award will be truncated in the event of a successful application, irrespective of the level.

Assessors should pay close attention to when an applicant was last granted an award and assess this against the evidence provided.

Part 2: eligibility for NCIAs

Who can apply for an award

To apply for an NCIA, a doctor or dentist needs to be a fully registered medical or dental practitioner on the:

• General Dental Council (GDC) specialist list
• General Medical Council (GMC) specialist list
• GP register

The applicant must be:

• fully registered with a licence to practise
• a permanent NHS consultant or academic GP in a permanent clinical academic role in higher education at the same level as a senior lecturer or above

Applicants must have met both of these conditions for at least one year, on 1 April in the award year in which they are applying.

This year does not include time spent as a locum or on other fixed-term consultant contracts, but applicants can give evidence from their achievements as a locum in the same role.

For consultants in a locum role for more than one year, we may consider them eligible for an NCIA if their employer confirms that they are employed on terms consistent with a permanent consultant contract.

In all cases, an applicant must be on either:

• an NHS consultant contract expressed in programmed activities (PAs)
• an academic contract expressed in an equivalent pay scale

Consultants working in Wales must be on an NHS consultant contract expressed in sessions, or on an academic contract expressed in an equivalent pay scale.

Qualifying criteria

An applicant will qualify if they are:

• employed by an NHS organisation, DHSC or its ALBs, a university, medical or dental school, or local authority. Applications from employees of other organisations may be eligible, including those on permanent consultant contracts providing contracted-out NHS services

In Wales, applicants will also qualify if they are employed by similar Welsh Government-associated organisations. 

• an academic GP, if their responsibilities are the same as consultant clinical academic staff and they are fully registered with a licence to practise. An academic GP can apply for an award if they:
  • work at least half their hours as an academic GP
  • are a practising clinician providing some direct NHS services
  • have at least 3 PAs or equivalent sessions that are clinically relevant to help the NHS, including teaching and clinical research, in their contract
• an academically employed consultant or a dental practitioner with an honorary NHS contract, who is fully registered with a licence to practise. Whether they qualify for an award does not only depend on their contractual contribution to the NHS in the provision of direct patient care. If they are an academic consultant, they will qualify for an award if they are contracted to carry out at least 3 programmed clinical activities or equivalent sessions that are clinically relevant to help the NHS. This includes teaching, training and clinical research. An applicant who is contracted to work fewer than 3 programmed clinically relevant activities (PAs) is not eligible to apply for or retain an award
• a fully registered public health consultant on the GMC specialist register, or on the GDC specialist list, with a licence to practise
• a postgraduate dean, fully registered with GMC or GDC, with a licence to practise, who competed for the role against GPs and consultants, and is responsible for postgraduate trainees across all specialties
• a consultant or academic GP later employed as a dean or head of school in medicine or dentistry, fully registered with GMC or GDC, with a licence to practise. They can apply for an award based on their work in this post
• a consultant, fully registered with GMC or GDC, with a licence to practise, working as an NHS trust clinical or medical director, or a similar level medical management post if they remain on a PA-based consultant contract. We would anticipate consultants working in this capacity clarifying their eligibility with ACCIA prior to application - with reference to their contractual contribution over and above the expected duties in the role, as well as their contractual status. As a dean, clinical or medical director, if the majority of their work is in a management role, they will qualify if they have an active consultant contract with a specific clinical, or clinical leadership, role that includes 3 clinically relevant PAs and continue to renew their licence to practise. They will no longer be eligible to apply for an award if they move into general management, reduce to below 3 clinically relevant PAs and/or have a management contract outside the consultant pay scale

As an NHS consultant, it does not make a difference if they have agreed to the national terms and conditions of service, or other terms with an individual organisation.

If a consultant works less than full time (LTFT), they can apply for an award if they undertake a minimum of 3 clinically relevant contractual PAs. If an applicant is eligible based on this minimum PA requirement and is successful, we will pay the full award. However, if a consultant is working LTFT and in a transition provision from an NCEA, based on schedule 30 legacy award values, they will receive a prorated award. Their working arrangement should be described in the job plan and the domains assessed against the LTFT expectations.

Our chair and medical director determine ‘clinically relevant’ eligibility by considering the description of an applicant’s activities that describe how they directly undertake clinical care, teaching, training and research activities within the allocated PAs in job plans. Administrative, oversight or management type activities are unlikely to be considered as clinically relevant.

The Ministry of Defence runs its own award scheme, but we also recognise eligible NHS employee contributions over and above the expected standards to military medical and dental services. 

Retirement and pensions arrangements

As of 1 April 2023, if an applicant begins receiving pension benefits up to 100% of their allowance, but continues in eligible employment, they are still eligible to apply for an award provided they continue to meet the standard eligibility criteria.

In all retirement cases, the ACCIA secretariat will flag to assessors when a truncated evidence period should be considered.

A consultant who did not have a national award when they retired can still apply for an NCIA.

For general retirement information for award holders, see the change of circumstances guide.

Reasons a consultant may not be eligible for an award

A consultant is not eligible to apply for an award if they are:

• not on the consultant pay scale as expressed in PAs or an equivalent
• a locum consultant - though if an applicant then becomes a permanent consultant, they can potentially use evidence from the locum role in their application if it is relevant
• a consultant who primarily works in general management, such as a chief executive, general manager, chief operating officer, or a senior university office holder without a specific clinical role
• not fully registered with a licence to practise

Investigations into a consultant’s work and disciplinary or legal action against an individual can affect their award or application. This includes interim, temporary or final court orders or penalties relating to professional or personal conduct that may reflect badly on their judgement, or the expected standards of the profession.

Consultants must let us know about any investigations or sanctions by an employer or professional regulator (GMC or GDC) and their progression, interim and final decisions and any sanctions. We will look at each case individually, but we may remove an award if there are adverse outcomes following investigations or disciplinary measures, or if we believe a doctor has failed to notify us appropriately or in a timely manner. If employers become aware of such matters, they are also expected to notify ACCIA. This information will not be made available to assessors, unless relevant, due to our approach of innocent until proven otherwise.

We also ask about an organisation’s latest inspection outcome. Inspections outcomes should not impact scoring. Instead, we expect assessors to focus on the applicants’ work above and beyond their contractual duties. If an organisation is in special measures, we expect a consultant to comment on any relevance of this to their role. If a consultant is on the board of an organisation in special measures and is recommended for an award, we will inform our main committee.

Part 3: the application process

Applications can only be made online at the ACCIA application portal.

Support for applications

We cannot accept applications without sign-off from the applicants’ employers. They will need to complete a short form to verify the application. This requires joint sign-off from all employers if there is more than one. Further details are available in the employers’ guide.

If a consultant works for a university (clinical academic), the chief executive of the organisation where they hold an honorary contract, or their nominated deputy, should complete this section. It is ACCIA’s expectation that both the relevant NHS organisation and the university or medical school will be involved in the approval process and the preparation of any supporting citation, and that an up-to-date job plan has been agreed by both parties. See part 5 below on how to interpret citations.

Many membership and specialty organisations can provide assistance and general guidance with applications using tools made available to them by ACCIA. Organisations must not proofread, review or directly critique any part of an application.

Timetable

The 2024 awards round closes at 5pm on 15 April 2024.

The first round of scoring will start shortly after, between 16 April and 9 June 2024. View the full indicative timetable for the 2024 national awards round.

Part 4: the assessment process

The awards scheme is based on a non-stratified system of scoring with no renewals. As explained above, an online application form will be submitted for competitive scoring in the first instance to one of the 13 regional sub-committees or to the ALB committee, with separate arrangements in place for applicants in Wales. 

Each region is pre-allocated an indicative number of awards at each level (N1, N2 and N3) to retain the equity of regional opportunity for success. This is based on the number of awards available nationally and the number of applications received. A 2-stage scoring system then operates.

In the initial scoring round, all applications will be assessed on merit, scoring each domain a 0, 2, 6 or 10. A ranked list is then generated on the basis of mean scores for the applicants as normalised between any regional scoring groups. This leads to a provisional allocation of a certain number of awards at N1, N2 and N3 level on this basis. For example, in the event of there being 2,000 applications this year, and a planned final total award number of 600, this gives a 30% success rate. A large region may have an indicative number of, say, as many as 400 applications. With a fixed proportion of N1, N2 and N3 awards - 55%, 33% and 12% - this would mean that, in the initial scoring round, the regional sub-committee would recommend 66 awards at N1 level, 40 awards at N2 level and 14 awards at N3 level. The cut-off score is dictated by the indicative numbers and the distribution of the average scores within a region.

To determine the final allocation of N3 (the highest award level) and N2 awards in this region, the 14 presumptive N3s and 14 top-ranked N2 awards are then referred for re-scoring by the national N3 committee, comprising chairs and medical vice-chairs drawn from the English regions and selected other experienced scorers. This committee will re-score the 28 applications together with all other similarly placed applications from all other regional sub-committees. At a national level, the aim will be to allocate 70 applications at N3 level. These will be those ranked in the top 50% after review by the N3 committee, while the bottom 50% will be recommended for an N2 award.

The N2 awardees nationally will therefore comprise:

• 70 applicants drawn from the lower ranked 50% from the national N3 committee
• 130 individuals chosen through stage 1 scoring

This makes a total of 200 awards subject to governance and any financial constraints related to transitional pay protection costs.

Governance review

N3 awards will be subject to governance review by the ACCIA chair, medical director and the main ACCIA committee, as were platinum awards previously. Chair and medical director scrutiny will also be applied to all N1 awards and the lower N2 cohort with referral to NRES. Detailed NRES processes will be advised at a later date and will depend on the numbers of applicants referred.

The final number of awards may be limited by the funding available and is ultimately subject to ministerial approval.

Diagram showing the scoring process

The diagram sets out an example of how the scoring process might look if there are 600 awards available.

First, the secretariat will calculate indicative numbers. These will then be split by region proportionate to the number of applications received. At this stage, regional sub-committee scoring will take place.

Then all the available N1 awards and the top proportion of N2 awards will go to the National N3 committee for scrutiny. Meanwhile, the lowest N2 awards and all N1 awards will be sent for scrutiny by the chair and medical director.

Once the chair and medical director scrutiny and N3 committee review has taken place, all N1 and N2 awards should be approved, bar a select few submitted to NRES.

The remaining N3 awards will simultaneously be reviewed by the chair, medical director and ACCIA main committee. Once all these processes are complete, the awards will be decided. The final list of successful applicants will be sent for ministerial approval.

Regional sub-committees

A regional sub-committee has a lay chair, medical vice-chair and typically between 15 and 30 members. These roles are voluntary and regularly refreshed. Applications are vetted and approved by the ACCIA chair and medical director. Regional chairs and medical vice-chairs are refreshed each year as tenures expire. We continue to keep this under review.

The regional sub-committee members have responsibility for stage 1 scoring. Depending on the volume of applications within a region, applications may be assessed in single or multiple scoring groups, with applications randomly assigned in the latter instance. As a regional sub-committee member, you will be allocated to one of these groups and score typically between 30 and 70 applications. In some cases, scorers will be allocated to a different region to balance diversity and workload, and deal with conflicts of interest - for example, if a professional regional sub-committee member is also applying for an award. A small number of experienced assessors may also be asked to join NRES. ACCIA will inform all scorers of their obligations at the end of the application round, when all the applications have been submitted and we have a clear idea of the number of applications that need to be assessed.

Regional sub-committee meetings will typically be held online using Microsoft Teams, or in some cases hybrid depending on circumstances. They will be organised and attended by one or more members of the ACCIA secretariat. These will take place in late spring or early summer, with dates to be advised in advance. Prior to each meeting, all provisionally successful allocations will be reviewed by the ACCIA chair or medical director. All discussions regarding NCIAs are confidential, and no aspects must be disclosed or discussed outside of the meeting. The secretariat takes notes of the outcomes regarding applications - however, regional sub-committee meetings are not formally minuted.

Any application where we have governance concerns will be flagged in advance to the regional sub-committee scorers for discussion at that meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the relevant issues and decide on the need for referral to NRES. There is no re-scoring regionally or changing of marks or ranking, and your role at the regional committee meeting is to provide corroboration and triangulation of information on the form where possible. No specific additional information known to committee members but absent from the written application can be considered at this point, nor is it your role as a regional sub-committee member to lobby for any particular individual. Applications below the derived cut-off scores are not discussed, though applications will be referred to NRES in the event of a tie of these scores.

Regional sub-committee meetings will be chaired by the ACCIA chair, with support from the local chair and medical vice-chair. There is the option for the regional sub-committee chair or medical vice-chair to organise a pre-meeting on the same day or on another occasion to discuss those applications flagged by the governance review, or other local issues, but this is no longer compulsory. The same rules apply, and scores cannot be modified in any way.

All new regional sub-committee members are required to attend the scorer training ACCIA is offering in early 2024. This will be delivered in an interactive way using the Microsoft Teams platform. Each session lasts between approximately 2 to 3 hours. Experienced scorers are also encouraged to attend for refresher training.

Part 5: how to score an application

Your role as an assessor - principles and priorities

Your role as an assessor is to assess clinical impact. Clinical impact is about providing high-quality services to patients that:

• go beyond the applicant’s immediate remit
• improve clinical outcomes for as many patients as possible
• use resources efficiently and make national services more productive

Applicants need to demonstrate their role as an enabler and leader of health provision, prevention, and policy development and implementation. There will also be an opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to, and nationally relevant impact on, improving the NHS through leadership, education, training, people development, and innovation and research. Applicants do not need to show they have achieved over and above expected standards in all these areas.

You must: 

• assess evidence on the application form in the 5 domains against expectations in the job plan provided, considering any extenuating circumstances as necessary
• base the assessment only on written information presented in the form - not hearsay, reputation or prior personal knowledge
• not assess any information from website addresses or other external links applicants may include to provide additional information
• not access or score evidence that is not on the application form
• review the employer sign-off and citations to triangulate the evidence - citations, personal statements and other components of the application form are not scored
• score independently without discussion or consultation
• be consistent and fair in your scoring, remaining constantly aware of the possibility of conscious and unconscious bias
• declare any conflicts of interest to the secretariat as soon as they are known. To ensure the probity of the awards process, sub-committee members should not participate in the scoring or discussion of applications from close personal friends, family members or those with whom they have a managerial or subordinate reporting relationship
• identify any major conflicts of interest and, if necessary, omit to score one or more applications, informing ACCIA of why you elected to take this course of action. A candidate will not be disadvantaged by this as the aggregate scores from the other scorers are still averaged in the same way

Professional members should not score or discuss any applications in a particular region if they are applying in that region and may be asked not to score in NRES or N3 scoring.

Professional, lay and employer representatives are there to score and assess individual applications and are not there to represent any specialty, organisation, race or sex.

Confidentiality is paramount and applies equally in these contexts:

• assessing and scoring applications
• discussions at regional sub-committee or other meetings
• discussion of applications at training sessions
• informal mentoring and discussions with applicants
• discussion or casual conversations outside of committee meetings

You should only confer with other sub-committee members (who are not themselves applying) once you have all scored the applications and scoring has closed. If you have any concerns or need advice about an application or the scoring process, you should raise them with your committee’s chair, medical vice-chair and with the ACCIA secretariat ([email protected]). Under no circumstances should you discuss the process with any of the applicants or any other party.

Assessing the domains

Applicants need to make it clear that their achievements are from the relevant evidence period and are clearly linked to the NHS. As an assessor, you need to know when they occurred or if an applicant is still doing these activities. It is essential that they make the dates of their achievements clear, as without dates they cannot be scored. You should:

• differentiate between achievements (results and output) and activity (input)
• score achievements that are national more highly

Activity alone should not generate high scores.

We expect applicants to:

• highlight the most important examples of their work, focusing on its national and sometimes international impacts
• describe the national impact they have had in any roles listed, including acknowledging the contribution of colleagues and other members of the multi-professional team
• make it clear when their roles started and ended, or if they are ongoing

To determine if a consultant is performing over and above the expectations of their role, it is helpful if they list their achievements against the original aims in their job plan or personal development plan.

An applicant could get a national award based on a local or regional contribution above and beyond their contractual duties if it has been disseminated and had a demonstrable impact on the wider NHS.

An applicant should not include evidence given for an earlier award unless it shows how they have actively built on or consolidated previous achievements in the last 5 years, or since their prior award if less than 5 years ago.

Applicants may include national audit process data to provide external validation to evidence their impact. It is important to note that it may be easier to quantify clinical quality and performance in some clinical areas than others.

The ‘job plan’ section of the application is an important benchmark for expectations of the applicant’s paid roles. It should list clearly and separately each direct clinical care, supporting and other PA the applicant is paid for, including (if relevant) a detailed breakdown of any academic PAs (research, teaching and university management responsibilities). It should state clearly which activities the NHS pays for directly and which, if any, are paid for by others such as a university, research council, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), another research funder or deanery.

Applicants should also describe any other paid roles that are relevant to the evidence provided in the application - how many PAs they represent and for what activities. We do not need to know the amount paid.

If they receive any income outside their job plan from wider roles that may be relevant to the evidence provided in their application, such as editorial payments, consultancy or lecture fees, or roles or shareholdings in private companies (such as non-executive roles or senior positions in spin-off companies between academia or NHS organisations and the private sector), these should be outlined in this section. 

We do not need to know the amount paid and there is no requirement to list private or wider income if it is not relevant to the evidence set out in the application.

If the job plan is not clear, it can be difficult to assess the evidence in the domains and you may allocate lower scores as a result. Work that is paid as part of the job plan is considered out of scope and only work above and beyond the contracted responsibilities should be assessed. Other work that is paid from elsewhere should also not be scored highly unless it is made clear how its impact is above the expectations of its remuneration.

Committee members should score the domain sections as follows:

• 10 = the application is excellent with clear and sustained national and/or international impact directly relevant to the NHS
• 6 = the work is over and above the applicant’s contract terms and should have national or at least demonstrable regional impact
• 2 = an applicant has met the terms of their contract or may have contributed more but mainly within their locality
• 0 = a consultant has not met the terms of their contract or there is not enough information to make a judgement

What to look for in each domain

There are 5 domains. It is expected that achievements (outputs and results) are described in line with each one. Applicants who are scored highly are expected to provide activity plus impact and not just activity alone.

Example:

Activity only: I am a member of the working group that led to the establishment of the National xxx Audit (since 2020).

Activity plus impact: I am a member of the working group that led to the establishment of the National xxx Audit (since 2020), which has delivered an improvement in outcomes from x to y from 2020 to date.

Applicants are advised to avoid repetition across domains unless the evidence shows different aspects of the work that is relevant to other domains. Any evidence that is repeated can only be scored in one domain, unless it relates to a different aspect of the same work. For example, where an applicant shows evidence of impact on the quality of undergraduate education but also in the leadership of other teaching staff.

Similarly, applicants are expected to adhere to the individual domain themes with their evidence, although we recognise that there can be elements of overlap between the evidence in each domain. If evidence appears misplaced in a domain, you may choose to score it positively but adjust your score downwards because it is misplaced. This is especially the case if evidence on the same theme is also present in the correct domain as it may be reflective of a lack of breadth in the application. It is appropriate to moderate your score in one or other of these domains as a result.

In all cases, dates must be included. You should not credit evidence if you are not confident it applies to the correct evidence period.

We recognise the extraordinary requirements of the COVID-19 pandemic and the work that many consultants, academic GPs and multiple other healthcare workers have contributed. Applicants may choose to include evidence related to this as part of their evidence base over prior years. If this is the case, look for evidence of impact of contributions over and above an applicant’s expected role, where it has had an impact outside of their immediate local remit.

We recognise how important redeployment and extended hours and remits were during the pandemic, and that these have been broadly universal across the NHS. Some recognition may be given for efforts made to maintain or help the recovery of other key clinical services, research activities, and teaching and training following the pandemic period. While local work related to COVID-19 was essential, it should be scored higher where there is clear evidence demonstrating how it has had national impact.

Domain 1: delivering and developing a high-quality service

In this section, applicants should give clearly dated evidence of what has been achieved in relation to:

• providing and developing a safe service with measurable, effective clinical outcomes. This should be based on the delivery of high technical and clinical standards of service that provides a good experience for patients
• how they have cascaded their high-quality work widely to colleagues who have implemented improvements based on this experience. Relevant publications may provide corroboration
• consistently looking for and introducing ways that have improved their service - sharing the learning and seeing evidence of its embedding in practice elsewhere

Applicants should explain which activities relate to clinical services where they are paid by the NHS, and to other aspects of their work as a consultant.

Applicants should include quantified measures like outcome data. These need to reflect the whole service the multi-professional team provides and how they have collectively disseminated their experience. Applicants should use validated indicators for quality improvement or quality standards and other reference data sources in England or the healthcare standards for Wales. Ideally they would have provided performance data against benchmark or national indicators for their specialty, showing local and wider improvements as a result of their work.

For good patient experience, applicants should show how they have ensured patients are cared for with compassion, integrity and dignity. They should also show how they have demonstrated commitment to patient safety and wellbeing.

Evidence could show:

• excellent standards for dealing with patients, relatives and staff. This could be demonstrated through surveys or collated 360-degree feedback to validate evidence of patients’ quality care, especially when this practice has been further shared and used to improve services elsewhere
• excellent work in preventative medicine and public health - for example, in alcohol abuse, vaccination programmes, stopping smoking and preventing injury - and where this work has been further developed outside their immediate remit
• how wider NHS resources are used effectively and their efficiencies improved
• developing and running audit cycles or plans for evidence-based practice to make the service measurably better
• national or local clinical audits and national confidential enquiries
• developing and using diagnostic and other tools and techniques to find barriers to clinical effectiveness, and ways to overcome them and implement new ways of working
• analysing and managing risk - details of specific improvements or how risk was lowered and safety improved
• providing a better service, with proof of the effect it has had - for example, how a service has become more patient centred and accessible
• improving the service after speaking to patients or setting up and engaging with patient support groups
• redesigning a service to be more productive and efficient, with no decrease in the quality, particularly at a regional or national level
• developing new health or healthcare plans or policies
• large reviews, inquiries or investigations
• national policies to modernise health services, new ways of working or professional practice

Look for evidence provided of the quality and breadth of a service from audits or assessments by patients, peers, the employer or external bodies. It should not impact negatively on your scoring if there is less readily quantifiable evidence available in a particular specialty.

Evaluate the source of the information given - for example, from formal audits compared with departmental figures collated by the applicant - and whether all relevant dates have been included.

National or regional benchmark comparisons are useful to review, if available. For example, standard mortality ratios, peri-operative complication rates, MRSA, C. difficile rates, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention or length of stay data.

A strong applicant may show how they have significantly improved the clinical effectiveness of their local services and either improved services elsewhere or used their experience to enable others to do so. Similarly, this experience may be translatable to other clinical services in the wider NHS in other areas. This includes making services better, safer and more cost-effective more widely, particularly in addressing differences in outcomes between different geographic regions or diverse patient groups. Relevant publications authored by the applicant may be informative.

In all cases, an applicant should make their personal contribution clear, not just their department’s contribution, stating what they have contributed as part of a wider team where relevant. You should consider any changes made after the results of an audit, or changes to which the applicant contributed as part of governance reviews. Look for evidence of how the applicant may have personally helped these activities contribute to wider change in the NHS.

The applicant should clearly set out audit or published research to show where the consultant’s work has directly improved their service and disseminated this good practice more widely.

Domain 1 examples

Example 1:

I have further developed efficiency and quality of the xxx heart magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) service and disseminated achievements beyond my job-planned activities as follows:

• since 2019, I have grown the service by 25% to 3,000 per year (largest in xxx of England)

• in 2019, I introduced patient-centred governance (including annual 360-degree patient feedback, audit cycles, safety and quality reviews). The service was rewarded with European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging accreditation in 2022 based on its expansion to all other units in my region

• through close university partnership, I improve NHS service efficiency (in 2021 academics delivered NHS service with NHS staff reassigned to COVID care) and quality (rapid research-clinical translation)

• while most other NHS wait times increased, I kept heart MRI wait below national pre-COVID benchmark throughout the pandemic - 2019 to 2021

• in 2020, introduced a faster heart MRI protocol with equivalent quality to previous methods. This improved local service efficiency by 25% (more scans at same cost) and patient experience (shorter scan). Method published in a sector-leading xxx journal and disseminated internationally in 2022. Five other regional units adopted my methodology in 2022

• pioneered new MRI methods for non-invasive, radiation-free diagnosis of heart disease in newborns in 2021 and in the foetus in 2022. Published the method (reference) and first clinical experience (in press 2022) to cascade beyond local service

• in 2019, proposed an automated quantitative method in collaboration with UK and US scientists that allows more objective diagnosis of heart disease that can replace expensive radiation-based nuclear imaging. From 2021 the method was available to NHS patients in xxx and London and is now embedded in more than 10 NHS hospitals

• in 2019, set up heart screening for patients at high cardiac risk (such as diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis), implementing the national NHS strategy and delivering an estimated yy preventable events in 2023 as compared with 2019 equating to an x% reduction

Example 2:

I set up a short stay programme in 2019 that has the lowest length of stay for hip replacements in England - 2.7 days as against the England average of 6.1 days. Two-thirds (67%) of patients are home after 2 nights. Achieved 98.5% patient satisfaction. Readmission rate of 5.1% as compared with the regional average of 7%. This has been communicated in xxx fora and adopted as best practice standards by xxx body and is now in place across more than 100 trusts in England.

Domain 2: leadership

In this section, an applicant should show how they have made a significant personal contribution to leading and developing a service, health policy or guidelines with national or international impact (with relevance to the NHS). This should show evidence outside the expectations of any paid leadership role they may have. Pay particular consideration to work that delivered against objectives in the NHS Long Term Plan.

Applicants should describe the impact and outcomes generated in the specific roles they list, and how it has been cascaded and implemented widely. Evidence can include, but is not limited to, proof of:

• effective leadership techniques and processes - giving specific examples of how they improved the quality of care for patients and where they have directly or indirectly influenced other parts of the NHS to achieve these benefits
• change management programmes or service innovations they have led - showing how they made the service more effective, productive or efficient for patients, the public and staff, beyond their direct remit
• excellent leadership in developing and providing preventative medicine, particularly working across organisational or professional boundaries with other agencies, such as local councils and the voluntary sector, demonstrating the outcomes or impacts that have been delivered - for example, in delivering benefits where health inequalities exist
• how applicants helped staff or teams more widely improve patient care - giving specific examples and their outcomes such as mentoring or coaching. Consultants who work in England may mention the guidance on talent and leadership planning
• any ambassador or change champion roles - for example, if they were involved in or their job involved explaining complex issues and how this translated into changes in practice
• how applicants developed a clear, shared vision and desire for change in others - for example, showing how they invested in new ways of working and handled resistant behaviour to deliver wider change outside of their remit, particularly where they did not have direct oversight responsibility
• how applicants helped staff into senior leadership roles by removing barriers, encouraging diversity, and achieving equality and inclusion outcomes
• how applicants contributed to developing patient-focused services in their area and cascaded the experience and expertise to influence others to adopt new ways of working, particularly at a regional or national level
• national impact through personal work and influence through any committee membership. Look for evidence of what was done personally, with a description of the impact of any output - membership alone is not enough
• the effects of team leadership where the applicant had full or joint responsibility or took turns with other leaders to lead specific areas of complementary work
• where applicants took personal leadership for clinical governance, including developing and implementing policies, services or change programmes

Applicants are required to show specific evidence of contribution, the source of any data and relevant dates.

Work in roles in education, such as chairperson of a training committee, should not be cited in this domain. Applicants should include that information in domain 3. As stated before, if evidence appears misplaced in a domain, you may choose to score it positively but adjust your score downwards because it is misplaced. This is especially the case if evidence on the same theme is also present in the correct domain as it may be reflective of a lack of breadth in the application. It is appropriate to moderate your score in one or other of these domains as a result.

Domain 2 example

National and international:

• as Royal College of Physicians (RCP) special adviser on xxx since 2019, I lead the RCP’s xxx policy, interfacing with DHSC. I organised a meeting at Number 10 (2021). I responded to xxx consultations, reports and news items

• as chair of the RCP advisory group on xxx (2019) and advisory group on health inequalities member (2020), I’ve worked across professional boundaries and with patient groups to agree new policies xxx and yyy that have been adopted by xxx in 2022

• I have developed and presented an xxx documentary xxx, highlighting the complexities of xxx, viewed more than 13,000 times since March 2022

• I co-chair NHS England’s Clinical Advisory Group for tier 3 and 4 services (from 2021) responsible for mapping and establishing services across England, which has led to adoption in 50% of NHS trusts by 2023

• I have been a trustee and chair of the nationwide patient charity xxx Empowerment Network UK steering group since 2019 (see domains 3 and 5) and together we have established a firmer platform for their funding and research relationships with NIHR

• I am a trustee for the Association for the Study of xxx (ASX) since 2016 and organise annual national clinical network meetings to share best practice. I have organised 3 meetings in the last 5 years that included overseeing the scientific programme and speakers to an audience of 200 healthcare professionals

• I am a currently a member of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) xxx Clinical Guideline Committee (since 2021) responsible for updating the guidelines. So far we have updated the following 3 guidelines, x, y, z, that were issued in 2022 and 2023 respectively

• I am a member of the working group that led to the establishment of the National xxx Audit (since 2020) which has delivered an improvement in outcomes from x to y from 2020 to date

Domain 3: education, training and people development

In this section, an applicant should give evidence to show their contribution to wider education and training across the professions, and to patients outside their local or paid remit. It should be made clear if any training or lecturing is externally or separately remunerated.

Where relevant, applicants should give evidence of the impact of their work in supporting the NHS People Plan and if it falls into any of the following categories. We do not expect examples for all of these categories and other categories can be included.

Teaching

This can be medical undergraduate or multidisciplinary team teaching if it is outside the job plan. Undergraduate teaching or local academic management activities (for example, chairing an examination board) that are a core part of an individual’s job plan are not considered to be over and above their role.

Applicants are encouraged to give evidence of student feedback or other teacher quality assessments, and particularly focus on how their educational work has improved others’ performance and has had a positive impact on healthcare. As an assessor, you should look for evidence of a personal role in curriculum development and/or assessment and, if relevant, evidence of wider adoption of novel work in these areas in UK medical schools or internationally.

Leadership and innovation in training

This should include evidence of the impact of these activities outside of an applicant’s own remit, preferably nationally, or internationally if relevant to the NHS. This might include:

• developing and introducing a new course, such as at masters level
• innovative assessment methods
• introducing new learning facilities
• writing successful textbooks, or developing online teaching or training modules, or an app
• contributing to postgraduate education and lifelong learning
• contributing to teaching and assessment in other UK centres or abroad
• developing other innovative training methods, such as simulation based

Supporting information could be presentations, invitations to lecture and publications on education. Evidence should be included of the wider national impact of these activities.

Educating and informing patients and public

Examples could include how applicants:

• promote good health and disease prevention within the community, which has delivered wider impacts
• facilitate the development of patient support groups at a regional or national level that can show improved patient engagement and outcomes, tangible improvements in preventing illness and injury, or improved patient and public involvement in research

College or university success in teaching audits

An applicant could explain if they helped a college or university succeed in regulatory body and quality assessment audits for teaching. This could include undergraduate or postgraduate exams, or supervising postgraduate students and trainees, leading to a demonstrable impact on healthcare as a result.

Personal commitment to developing teaching skills

Evidence could be included of higher education academy membership or fellowship and any educationally focused courses completed, and how these new skills or qualifications have been implemented in practice to improve and modernise training and education.

Unexpected or non-mainstream contributions

This could be any other teaching or educational commitment that has had national impact and is outside the job plan, or other paid work, which is not recognised in standard ways.

Domain 3 example

My main leadership role as Royal College of xxx Medical Director for Education and Training from 2020 to date is to ensure continued high-quality workforce supply to support patient services in xxxology to meet national objectives.

I:

• provided Royal College data in 2020 into the xxx review to support the need for 1,000 extra xxxologists

• led nationally to support training programmes and trusts accommodating 150 new xxxology training posts in England and extra senior posts in 2021 and 2022. This included support to make the local business case given the financial benefit of trainees and this has successfully unlocked previously unavailable training capacity in each region

• led the negotiation of changes to xxxology trainee recruitment with the national recruitment team. This new process successfully enabled increased numbers of candidates from x to y to be assessed in 2021 and 2022 to fill capacity from training post expansion

• led a new process of recruiting trainees nationally at a more senior specialty training (ST) 3 level to meet workforce need and training number targets. This involved development of a detailed certificate of training equivalence to demonstrate ST2 competencies achieved elsewhere and required agreement of national heads of training. Fifteen candidates were offered training posts in May 2022

• led the development of virtual and technology-enhanced training material and imaging platforms with the new imaging xxx academies in England in collaboration with academy leads. This has promoted a sharing ethos, with remote teaching sessions made available across xxxology academies in 2021 to 2022 to support increasing training provision from x to y

Domain 4: innovation and research

This section looks at innovation and its impact in any relevant setting and may include evidence of impactful work other than the activities that are traditionally considered as research.

It can include:

• new care pathways that have been developed and implemented, improved ways of working and process efficiencies that have been adopted widely and have demonstrably made more cost-effective use of NHS resources
• benefits of digital technology or other activities from projects with external partners that have demonstrated a benefit to the wider NHS, or that support GMC’s objectives of promoting research for doctors.

Remunerated roles for implementing digital healthcare tools locally would not be expected to score highly unless clearly over and above the paid role or implemented outside their geographic remit.

Applicants should be clear what evidence is over and above any research, academic or other expectations of their role and give evidence of the wider impact of the research and/or innovation. This may include developing the evidence base for measuring how quality has improved.

In the section on references, applicants should show details of achievements such as published peer-reviewed papers. Applicants should not include the names of referees or electronic links to papers or reviews. Any publications listed should be from the last 5 years. Evidence should include the relevance of these publications, where they have been published and explain the wider impact they have had. Providing the number of citations each paper has had or its academic score is not sufficient without further explanation of its impact.

As an assessor, you should look for linkage between this section and evidence provided in other parts of the form. For example, if in domain 1 or 2 an applicant has indicated that they have played a major role in the development of a clinical guideline, look for a relevant publication. The guideline itself may have been published in an official document (such as through a government agency) or in a relevant journal.

When assessing publications, you should be aware that it is easier for investigators in certain specialties to publish work in reputationally high-impact journals, such as The Lancet or the British Medical Journal (BMJ), than in other clinical areas. The short explanatory comments attached to a paper should help and may confirm that a particular journal is the leading one in that area.

On a separate line, applicants could explain what they have achieved in the last 5 years and how this innovation or research has quantifiably improved health outcomes. They must give supporting evidence. For example, they could give details of new evidence-based techniques, innovative systems or service models developed that others have adopted more widely.

Applicants could also explain how they have improved patient and public engagement in research and innovation, both in the planning and delivery stages, or encouraged new ways of thinking informed by patient involvement when it comes to improving patient services, detailing the specific wider benefits this has brought.

Applicants should describe the effect of their research (including laboratory research) and any new techniques they have developed, and the wider benefits delivered on:

• health service practice
• health service policy
• developing and improving health services and enhancing patient care

As an assessor, you should look for a clear explanation of how their research is currently relevant to the health of patients and the public, or how it may do so in the future.

Applicants could give details of the impacts delivered as a result of:

• large trials or evaluations (including systematic reviews) they led or co-investigated, and published in the last 5 years. It may be helpful to look at the publication list to corroborate the applicant’s involvement in this work
• their contributions as a research leader, how they have helped and supervised other people’s research and mentored new investigators. For example, look at the publication list to see whether the applicant has published papers with research students or other members of the multi-professional research team

Applicants could include other examples of the personal impact they have made in their chosen research fields. For example, how their work on any review boards of national funding agencies, charities or learned societies has delivered quantifiable improvements over a defined period.

Applicants could also:

• list any grants they hold personally (specifying their role as chief or principal investigator where relevant) and explain how this funding is being used to deliver benefits. You should bear in mind that it may be some time (5 to 10 years) before a research grant produces tangible results. It is also the case that there is not always a direct relationship between the monetary value of a research grant and the resulting impact of the work funded. Important research findings and clinical innovations can result from relatively modest grants, and obtaining multimillion pound grants without evidence of quality outputs should not in itself earn a high score. Evaluating the publications section may be useful. You should, as an example, consider whether the grant funding resulted in one or more high-quality papers or reports
• describe peer-reviewed publications, chapters or books written or edited - defining their editorial activity for each one (for example, senior editor) and any quantitative measures on how effective they have been in changing practice
• give details if they played a major part in research studies in more than one centre - for example, personally recruiting participants to large clinical trials
• include evidence of outstanding research that has led to new ways of preventing illness and injury, or more rapid, cost-effective and reliable diagnosis, that have been implemented in the NHS
• show how they have engaged with a funding council, NIHR or a major research charity, specifying their role (clinical director, senior reviewer or research or fellowship programme lead). Applicants must give clear dates and evidence of their roles and impact

Domain 4 example

An excerpt from a high-scoring 2022 application:

Director, Musculoskeletal Research Group (MRG):

As a clinician scientist, I am a clinician first. Our 36 researchers address questions from the clinic. Current programmes include:

• understanding why rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flares

• can RA be prevented in those at risk?

• can patients in remission stop their treatment?

• can established RA be cured?

• why do RA patients lose muscle? Can it be reversed?

Success indicators:

• active funding of £6.5 million as principal investigator (PI), £1 million as co-investigator from 2018 to 2022

• 72 peer-reviewed papers published since 2018

• prestigious EULAR Centre of Excellence status awarded in 2020 (for 3rd time: 2010 to 2025)

International firsts:

• designed and completed (2022) the first trial to target joint-lining cells in RA, for patients refractory to standard therapy

• developed our own cell therapy to switch off RA. Phase 2 trial starts 2022

Collaboration:

• I led RA-MAP, an academic and industry consortium seeking biomarkers to inform clinical management and drug discovery. Such partnerships critically underpin the UK industrial and life sciences strategies. Our Medical Research Council-funded work, published in 2022, involved over 150 researchers and 267 patients with early RA

Director of research:

• our strategy endorses a mixed portfolio of commercial research, aligned with the UK’s innovation strategy and NHS Long Term Plan, and investigator-led research, equally critical for innovation within the NHS

• our ‘Dragon’s Den’ in 2022 will encourage NHS staff to submit their best ideas for mentorship and seed funding

Deputy Director, NIHR xxx Biomedical Research Centre (BRC):

• BRCs support research that tests treatments and assays in patients for the first time, driving NHS innovation. As deputy director of our £15 million BRC since 2019, I have overseen strategy across 6 themes. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) plays an essential role in strategy development, involving x focus groups in the last 5 years, to provide our strong emphasis on training, education and people development. I also lead our musculoskeletal theme

Domain 5: additional national impact

This domain is an opportunity for applicants to:

• provide evidence of wider beneficial impacts that have not been captured in other domains
• demonstrate how their work has had a wider effect on areas that are national clinical priorities

This could relate to work within their job plan but should demonstrate the national impact over and above the expectations of activity that they are paid to do. Any evidence that is repeated from prior domains should not be awarded any scoring points here.

Applicants may include any work for charitable organisations and work that may have more of a patient or public focus, tackling health and workplace inequalities and fostering interprofessional team building or new ways of working. It can also include international work in training, research or recruitment that is of clear benefit to the NHS, but in all cases the impact should be clear, with any national benefits scored most highly.

Other relevant activities are:

• NHS priority disease areas such as cancer, its diagnosis, prevention, treatment and outcomes
• communicable and non-communicable diseases
• other areas where there is outstanding need or identified health inequalities or disparities

It may also cover public health and patient care pathways. For example, an applicant could seek to demonstrate how they prevented inappropriate emergency department attendance or generated other benefits, such as working with social care providers, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) or third parties in other ways, and how this experience has been shared and implemented elsewhere.

Applicants could include work on delivering wider health policies or their impact related to the NHS Long Term Plan and/or the NHS People Plan, particularly in reference to collaborative working, demonstrating an inclusive culture and the health and wellbeing of NHS staff and their retention in the face of increasing pressures. In all cases, applicants should give details of how they are delivering wider change and the magnitude of any impacts over a defined period. They may choose to inform us if they are actively involved in a leadership capacity at a regional or national level in the delivery of the COVID-19 backlog plan - clearly defining the impact of their personal contribution.

Applicants may consider providing evidence of the impact on delivering improved joined-up care in line with its recommendations in optimal settings, by implementing new service models or specifically digital innovations or efficiencies across the wider health environments. This is particularly relevant if they have expanded these beyond their immediate area or remit. They may also offer evidence of involvement and leadership in activities and innovations that have been developed in partnership with external partners, which provided positive impacts to the NHS and are in line with the government’s Life Sciences Vision.

There is also scope for including impacts on outcomes improvement, particularly in areas identified with unmet need or where there is undue national or regional variation in outcomes across the NHS.

This domain could also be used to provide additional evidence that is related to evidence from a prior domain. They should take the opportunity to demonstrate different aspects of their work that are over and above their job role and how these have had incremental impact. Repetition of the same evidence without a different angle should be discounted. You must only score evidence once.

As an assessor, your priority is to look for evidence of outputs that have had a real impact, rather than activity alone.

Domain 5 examples

Examples of high-scoring domain 5 evidence from the 2022 round:

As a member of the NHS England xxx Clinical Reference Group (2016 to 2022), I develop innovative policies and service specifications to improve current and future care and efficiency in all NHS tertiary services. This includes my detailed work on the NICE COVID-19 rapid guideline for the immunocompromised (May 2020) and the NHS England Multidrug Resistance Policy (2019).

I have jointly overseen xxx regional clinical management for COVID-19 complications. Since April 2020, the team conducted around 170 emergency consultations across the region.

I have led joint work between UK clinical research facility directors, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Health Research Authority throughout 2019 to develop a national framework for the governance and safe conduct of highest risk phase 1 trials in clinical research facilities and the NHS. This was rolled out during the pandemic for experienced sites to support those without existing phase 1 expertise, expanding NHS and national capability to support public and industry-funded new drug and vaccine development. We involved xx centres in this activity.

I ensure participant safety and effective trial delivery via my roles as:

• Independent chair of the Data Monitoring and Safety Committee (DMSC) for a UK healthy human immune challenge trial since 2021

• independent chair of the COVID-19 vaccine trial steering committee

• member of the South African COVID-19 booster trial

I developed high-quality national guidelines via my membership of the NICE guideline committee for xxx (2020) and of the international xxx campaign working party (2018 to 2019). I was one of 3 Royal College representatives to the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges’ xxx Position Statement Working Party (2020 to 2022).

Employer citations

Employer citations primarily serve to confirm that the applicant’s job plan has been agreed, and that they are meeting their contractual obligations as defined in that job plan. We expect confirmation that a consultant has engaged fully with local appraisal processes as required for revalidation by the GMC. We anticipate that all consultants will be supported by their employer. If an employer elects not to provide support, they should indicate why this is the case. A consultant can still apply for an NCIA. This information will be available to you as an assessor in the form and you will have to take a view as to its relevance in the context of the application as a whole.

The person (for example, a trust medical director or senior human resources manager) who is writing the employer citation may or may not be in a position to comment on the bulk of the nationally or regionally focused work that an applicant will have included on the form. They may instead focus on local clinical or management activity. This makes employer citations of variable value. A citation that does not mention or endorse an applicant’s national work should not be viewed negatively.

Employers are asked to comment on any disciplinary matters. If these have not concluded, we always presume innocence unless it has been proven otherwise. The presence of ongoing disciplinary matters without any sanctions should not affect any scores. ACCIA will determine any action required once the matter is completed.

Assessing applications from applicants working less than full time

Consultants working less than full time (LTFT) were eligible to apply for awards under the legacy NCEA scheme. Many high-quality applications were received with a high success rate, although the payment for these awards was prorated in proportion to the number of PAs worked. Under the NCIA scheme, LTFT consultants are still eligible - however, if successful, the award will be paid at the full level - N1, N2 or N3. To qualify, a consultant must have a contract that incorporates a minimum of 3 clinically relevant PAs.

The chair and medical director assess the ‘clinically relevant’ eligibility by considering the description of the applicant’s activities that describe how they have directly undertaken clinical care, teaching, training and research activities within the allocated PAs in job plans. Administrative, oversight or management type activities are unlikely to be considered as clinically relevant. 

If a consultant is working LTFT and in a transition provision from an NCEA based on legacy award values, they will receive a prorated award.

Consultants elect to work LTFT for a range of reasons, personal and professional. ACCIA does not require an applicant to indicate why they have chosen to do so. However, where there are extenuating circumstances - for example, ill health - that have led to the need to work LTFT, an applicant may choose to inform ACCIA directly and/or mention these on their form in their job plan, personal statement or in a relevant domain.

We advise you to look carefully at the job plan for all applicants - this is particularly important for LTFT applicants in order to help you decide if the contributions described in the domains on the form (clinical and/or academic) are over and above what their contractual responsibilities, regardless of having 3 or 10 PAs.