CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS POLICY. Documentation Control

Transcription

1 CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS POLICY Documentation Control Reference HR/PT&C/016 Approving Body Trust Board Date Approved 30 Implementation Date 30 Summary of Changes from Limited change due to pending national Previous Version review Supersedes Version 4 Consultation Undertaken LNC Senior Management Team Date of Completion of January 2017 Equality Impact Assessment Date of Completion of We January 2017 Are Here for You Assessment Date of Environmental January 2017 Impact Assessment (if applicable) Legal and/or Accreditation Not Applicable Implications Target Audience All Consultant Medical Staff (including Clinical Academics) and NCCGs on pre 2008 contracts Review Date March 2020 Lead Director Author/Lead Manager Further Guidance/Information Director of HR Medical Director Nicky Hill Director of HR Helen Wilkinson Head of Medical HR 1

2 CONTENTS Paragraph Title Page 1. Introduction 3 2. Executive Summary 3 3. Policy Statement 5 4. Definitions (including Glossary as needed) 5 5. Roles and Responsibilities 6 6. Policy and/or Procedural Requirements 6.1 Eligibility 6.2 Local Awards Process 6.3 Application Procedure 6.4 Evaluation & Awards 6.5 Appeals Process 6.6 Non-Consultant Career Grade Doctors 7. Training, Implementation and Resources Impact Assessments Monitoring Matrix Relevant Legislation, National Guidance 20 and Associated NUH Documents Appendix 1 Guidance on Completion of Application 21 Form Appendix 2 Process of Evaluation ( scoring scheme) 23 Appendix 3 Template Application Form 30 Appendix 4 Equality Impact Assessment 35 Appendix 5 Environmental Impact Assessment 38 Appendix 6 Here For You Assessment 40 Appendix 7 Certification Of Employee Awareness

3 1.0 Introduction Clinical Excellence Awards (CEAs) exist to recognise and reward the exceptional contribution of NHS consultants, over and above that normally expected in their role, to the values and goals of the NHS and to patient care. Awards are therefore dependent on the demonstration of such contributions, and not on factors such as seniority or age. The Clinical Excellence Awards (CEA) Scheme is a single scheme comprising both employer-based local and regional/national elements. The whole scheme is governed by common criteria. The scheme is overseen across the NHS by the Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards (ACCEA) which is an independent, advisory Non-Departmental Public Body. 1.3 This document describes the process the Trust will follow in making employer based ( local ) awards, whilst paragraphs describe how the Trust will manage its contribution to applications for national awards. The CEA scheme is subject to national review and negotiation and this present policy will expire when these discussions are concluded. 2.0 Executive Summary There are twelve levels of award. The first eight of which (Levels 1-8) will be awarded by a Local Awards Committee (LAC), chaired by the Chief Executive. Either the ACCEA or the LAC, depending on the type of achievement being recognised, may award level 9/Bronze awards. The last three levels of award - Levels 10(Silver), 11 (Gold) and 12 (Platinum) - will be awarded by the national ACCEA and its sub-committees. Whilst Level 9 and Bronze awards are of the same value, they are designed to recognise different contributions. To receive a Bronze award an applicant will typically need to demonstrate an exceptional 3

4 contribution whose impact extends beyond the Trust. To receive a Level 9 award an applicant will typically need to demonstrate an exceptional contribution locally to the Trust Clinical Excellence Awards are pensionable. On retirement, awards cease; they are consolidated into pension. Consultants who are reemployed after retirement do not retain eligibility for payment of their award. Consultants will retain payment of Clinical Excellence Awards granted by one NHS employer on appointment to another NHS employer. Consultants in receipt of a Distinction Award or Discretionary Points are eligible to apply for awards under the CEA scheme. The award of a Clinical Excellence Award will subsume the value of any Discretionary Points or Distinction Awards held by the consultant. The annual level of investment in new awards in the Trust level will be based on the nationally prescribed formula. With effect from April 2011, 0.2 points per eligible consultant per annum can be awarded at Trust level. Awards are decided on a competitive basis, based on the relative merits of individual submissions, and can only be made by the LAC or Appeals Panel. The Chief Executive has the discretion and the authority to make additional points available for award by the LAC. Applicants should be aware that the content of their application is vital to the ability of the LAC to reward exceptional contributions the information provided in Appendix One is designed to assist applicants in completing their forms. Please read this information carefully before completing an application. National ( Higher ) Awards 2.8 Applications for national awards require the Chief Executive to indicate an assessment of each application including a level of support, to provide a citation and to identify a rank order for applicants for each level of award. In discharging this role the Chief Executive will seek the advice of three constituencies -: 4

5 o The LAC o Existing Higher Award Holders o Medical Managers (Divisional Directors, Deputy Medical Directors, Directors of Medical Education and Research, Dean of the Medical School) The relevant medical manager will also prepare draft citations for review by the Chief Executive. Where this individual is themselves applying for a national award then they should not participate in the prioritisation for the award in question. Where the medical manager is preparing a citation from a specialty other than their own, they should seek advice from the relevant Head of Service or other senior colleague. A timetable relating to the national awards process is published by the ACCEA and by professional societies and colleges. The Trust will publish a similar timetable to enable completion of the process described in Policy Statement 3.1 NUH is committed to operating a Clinical Excellence Award scheme in a fair and transparent way. The Trust will therefore adhere to the guidance set down by the Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards (ACCEA) except where local variations have been agreed with the Joint Negotiating Committee. 4.0 Definitions 4.1 ACCEA Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards LAC Local Awards Committee MSC Medical Staffing Committee 5

6 5.0 Roles and Responsibilities 5.1 Committees The LAC is the Trust s awarding body for Employer Based Clinical Excellence Awards Individual Officers The Head of Medical HR is responsible for overseeing the administration process to support both the National and Employer Based Clinical Excellent and for the on-line. The Head of Medical HR is also the named system administrator for the ACCEA s on line application process. The MSC chairs are responsible for selecting the Consultant members of the LAC. 6.0 Policy and/or Procedural Requirements ELIGIBILITY All Consultants, on national terms and conditions of service, who have one year s service as at 1st April in the particular annual round are eligible for consideration for payment of one or more Clinical Excellence Award levels, up to and including Level 9. Where an applicant has been successful in receiving a clinical excellence award in a given year, they will be deemed ineligible in the following annual employer based (local) Trust application and awards round. For example, an applicant who received an award of one point in 2012/13 can next reapply for a Trust ( local ) award in 2014/15. This provision does not apply to seeking support for applications for regional and national awards Academics and researchers with Honorary Consultant contracts are eligible for payment of Clinical Excellence Awards and will be 6

7 considered equally with other Consultants. They shall receive a proportion of any award granted to them according to the average time per week for which they are engaged in NHS clinical work (5PAs equivalent to 100% or Full Time) Where a Consultant intends to apply for a level 9 award, awarded by the Trust, they must be in receipt of at least a level 7 award (or equivalent). In addition any application for a level 9 award must be supported by a citation prepared by their Divisional Director. All awards made by the Trust at Level 9 are subject to five yearly reviews. Eligibility for an award is dependent upon fulfilment of all contractual obligations in relation to job planning review (including schedule of commitments and objectives), participation in an annual appraisal and compliance with the Private Practice Code of Conduct (and the Trust s own Private Patient Policy). Where these requirements are not met, the application will be rejected and not passed to the LAC for assessment. Any consultant subject to a disciplinary warning by the Trust or University, or to a sanction issued by the GMC will not be eligible to apply. Where such action is pending, the application will be assessed as normal, but any award would be withheld pending the outcome of the relevant process. LAC members are able to apply for awards but must not score their own application (or that of a spouse, partner or close relative) and must not take part in any discussion of their application (or that of a spouse, partner or close relative). Locum Consultants are not eligible to apply for Clinical Excellence Awards. The criterion to be used for assessing applications is attached at Appendix Two. The format of the Application Form is as agreed for the Trust. Additional forms for management, research and education contributions are no longer part of the NUH local process and will not be submitted to the LAC. These contributions should be recorded on the main application form within the 7

8 required domains LOCAL AWARDS PROCESS The scheme is based on a system of peer review, with managerial input, organised through the Local Awards Committee (LAC). Local Awards Committee The Local Awards Committee (LAC) has following role to perform: Review ranking and scoring, moderate (where deemed necessary and appropriate) and subsequently award Clinical Excellence Awards (Local Awards) Levels 1 to 9 for individual Consultants. Monitor overall operation of the CEA Scheme within NUH in respect of compliance with central and local guidance. Review statistical data in respect to agreed performance indicators. Propose improvements to the scheme to ensure its continued effective functioning. Submit an annual report in respect of local awards to ACCEA Proceedings are confidential, but the awards made will be published each year via the Chairs of the Medical Staff Committee. Minutes of the LAC s meetings will be made and will be available to appellants. The composition of the LAC will be as follows:- o Chief Executive - (Chairman) o Medical Director o Director of HR (vice-chair) 8

9 o Dean of the University of Nottingham Medical School o 3 further representatives nominated by the Chief Executive o 9 x Consultant representatives, including the 2 Medical Staff Committee Chairs, with one consultant representative from each clinical division The consultant members will be selected by the MSC, ensuring a variety of backgrounds. Where a directorate is unable to provide a consultant member to the LAC, the MSC Chairs have the discretion to appoint an alternative representative from another directorate. No consultant member or Chief Executive s nominee can serve more than two consecutive years as a member of the LAC, and must wait at least two years before re-joining the committee. This requirement does not apply to the MSC Chairs or the named executive roles. The LAC will be quorate with at least 66% of the full membership in attendance. The committee will be regarded as inquorate if there is not a majority of consultants (including the Medical Director and Dean) present. LAC members will separately assess the applications using the criteria and scoring system set out in Appendix Two. Their separate evaluations will be collated and discussed at a meeting of the LAC APPLICATION PROCEDURE All eligible Consultants will be advised of their eligibility in each year and must submit an appropriately completed application form electronically, in accordance with the timetable published at that time. Further guidance on applying for an award can be found at Appendix One. Head of Service sign-off Prior to applications being submitted to the LAC, applicants must 9

10 submit their application form to their Head of Service for sign-off. The Head of Service is expected to confirm that the Consultant is fulfilling his/her contractual terms and their schedule of commitments and objectives, and that the application is a true reflection of the Consultant s achievements. The Head of Service will not be required to comment on the merits of the application; it is simply to confirm its accuracy Under normal circumstances, on receipt of the application the Head of Service will either Agree with the contents as written and sign the application form or Discuss some amendments with the applicant and sign an amended form In the event of any disagreement between the applicant and Head of Service, the applicant should request that the application is reviewed by a third party. Separate guidance will be issued to support this process. In the event that parties remain unable to agree, the applicant may continue with their application as originally written, but the Head of Service will submit a statement to explain why he or she is unable to sign-off the application. If the applicant is a Head of Service sign-off will be provided by the Divisional Director. If the applicant is a Divisional Director sign-off will be provided by the Medical Director or his deputy. Completion of Forms Only the information sought on the application form will be accepted and considered. Any additional information supplied (including citations (other than for a level 9 award, abstracts etc.) will not be considered. All information provided must be clearly dated information not dated will be disregarded by the LAC members Where an applicant is seeking an award and is already in receipt of an award, the information provided should be from the date of the previous award and a copy of the last successful application form attached so this is clear. Information which precedes a 10

11 previous award will be disregarded. Level 9 applications To be considered for a level 9 award an applicant should already be in receipt of at least a level 7 award (or equivalent). Their application must be supported by a citation from the relevant Clinical Director 1. Review of Level 9 awards The review process will occur 5 years after any award at Level 9, and every five years thereafter. The review does not apply for any consultant holding an award at Level 9 who has a confirmed retirement date at or before 1 st October of the year in question. The review requires the submission of a standard application form in which the Consultant must set out how he or she continues to meet the criteria for which the award was initially given. Those applying for renewal should demonstrate, by reference to their achievements since the original award or the last review that they continue to meet the criteria for the scheme. In addition a citation by the relevant Divisional Director should also be provided which confirms that the candidate still merits the award held, and that there has been no penalty for the consultant following disciplinary action by the Trust or GMC/GDC. Applications for a renewal of a level 9 award will be considered by the LAC in the usual way. If the paperwork submitted for review is deemed insufficient to merit renewal of the award then the candidate will be invited to resubmit an application in the following year. In the event that a satisfactory application is still not forthcoming the applicant s award will be withdrawn and their level of award will be reduced to Level 8. 1 Where the applicant is a Clinical Director then the citation will be prepared by the relevant Head of Service and approved by the Medical Director. Where the applicant is the Medical Director the citation would be prepared by a Clinical Director nominated by the Chief Executive. 11

12 6.4 EVALUATION & AWARDS LAC Members of LAC will independently review completed current Application Form (copies of previous successful application are provided for cross-checking). In doing so they will use the scoring system as set out in Appendix Two, which can be summarised as -: Has made no assessable contribution 0 Meets contractual commitment 2 Over and above contractual commitment 6 Excellent contribution 10 Decision Making An overall score and ranking score listing will be issued to LAC members five working days before the LAC meeting. This listing will assist to facilitate the identification of the relative merits of applicant s submissions and subsequent recommendation of award level(s). The LAC will review all the data and, through discussion, will seek to confirm the rank order of applicants. The ranking score will be the key piece of information to support decisions by the LAC. The LAC shall then establish whether any applicants are deserving of an award of two or three (or more) levels of award. The LAC shall then establish which applicants are deserving of a single level of award. If fewer awards are made than there are available through the national investment formula then the remaining levels of award will be carried over to the following year. Notification The Chief Executive will write to all successful applicants as soon as possible after the LAC meeting, informing them of the decision 12

13 and subsequent level of award Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing, of the outcome, along with details relating to obtaining feedback and the agreed appeals mechanism. The LAC will agree an annual report to the ACCEA Secretariat, confirming the awards made. The annual report will demonstrate that the process was completed fairly and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the ACCEA. The list of award holders will be available to the consultant body via the MSC and via the ACCEA website. Feedback Every effort will be made to provide feedback to unsuccessful applicants, where requested, in order to assist with future applications. The Medical Director or Director of HR may be requested to provide feedback where this is deemed appropriate. APPEALS PROCESS Introduction It is recognised that some candidates will be disappointed with the final outcome of the awards process. However it is not possible to appeal simply because an applicant disagrees with the collective judgement of the Local Awards Committee or its sub-committees. No appeal should be brought against the fact that the substance of the application was judged insufficiently strong to merit an award in the absence of reason to believe that there were procedural failings. Where there is evidence of the process not being fairly applied, then an applicant may appeal. Examples of unfairness in the process might include -: o Extraneous factors or material were unfairly taken into account. o There has been unlawful discrimination, for example on the basis of gender, ethnicity, faith, disability, sexuality, 13

14 membership of a trade union or age. o The established evaluation processes were ignored o There was bias or conflict of interest on the part of the committee Appeals must be lodged within four weeks of the consultant receiving the results of the allocation of clinical excellence awards. They should be lodged in writing to the Director of HR. All appellants will be notified to the LAC. Informal steps to resolve the issue should be taken first, prior to instigating the formal process. Typically either the Medical Director or Director of HR will meet with appellants to discuss the process and the concerns leading to an appeal. An appellant may only proceed to a formal appeal panel if they have completed this informal stage. Membership of Appeal Panel The appeals panel shall be comprised of people who have had no previous involvement in the decision making process for that year and be as follows: o A Trust Director as Chairman o A senior medical manager who is employed by another Trust o Two consultant members appointed by the Medical Staff Committee (who have not applied or who are not eligible for a local award in the year in question) o A Director of HR who is employed by another Trust Appeal Format It is intended that the proceedings of a Clinical Excellence Award Appeal Hearing be conducted as informally as possible, whilst at the same time having regard to procedure. The objective is to allow each party to fully and frankly explain its position. An appellant may be represented at the formal appeal hearing by a colleague (defined as someone employed by Nottingham 14

15 University Hospitals (NHS) Trust or the University of Nottingham as applicable) or a trade union representative. Legal representation is not permitted The appellant (or their representative) will submit a brief written statement of case explaining why they believe the there is evidence of the process not being fairly applied. This will be submitted at least five working days before the appeal hearing. The LAC will be represented by the Medical Director or Director of HR, who will submit the paperwork relevant to the appellant s application and its assessment. The Appellant or representative shall state their case in the presence of the LAC representative. The LAC representative and members of the Appeal Panel, hearing the appeal, shall have the opportunity to ask questions of the Appellant/the representative. The LAC representative shall respond in the presence of the Appellant and his/her representative. The Appellant or representative and members of the Appeal Panel, hearing the appeal, shall have the opportunity to ask questions of the LAC representative. The LAC representative and the Appellant or representative shall have the opportunity to sum up their cases if they so wish. The Appellant shall have the right to speak last. In summing up neither party may introduce any new matter. The LAC representative, the Appellant and representative, will then withdraw. Nothing in the foregoing procedure shall prevent the Appeal Panel, hearing the appeal, from inviting either party to elucidate or amplify any statement made. Similarly, the Appeal Panel may exercise discretion to adjourn the Appeal in order that further evidence may be produced by either party or for any other reason. Appeal Outcome The Appeal Panel shall deliberate in private, only recalling both parties to clear points of uncertainty on evidence already given. If 15

16 recall is necessary both parties shall return notwithstanding only one is concerned with the point giving rise to doubt The decision of the Appeal Panel will be announced at the end of the Hearing wherever possible. The appeal chairman will write formally to the appellant with the outcome within five working days of the decision. The LAC will also be informed within the same time period. This will be achieved by way of sending a copy of the letter (to the appellant) to each member of the LAC. If successful, the appellant will receive the revised allocation of CEAs backdated to 1 April in the relevant year. Appeals against decisions of employer-based committees are initially handled by employers, according to this process. ACCEA would only become involved if cases remained unresolved. Any appeal against the NUH Appeal Panel decision should be referred in writing to the Head of the ACCEA Secretariat within four weeks of receiving the written decision from the Chair of the appeal, giving full reasons for the appeal. The Head of the ACCEA Secretariat will usually ask the Chair of the relevant ACCEA Regional Sub-Committee to investigate and advise ACCEA of the findings. Where these findings indicate that local procedures have been unsatisfactory, ACCEA will ask the LAC to reconsider the consultants application. It may also make recommendations to the EBAC as to how it should proceed. The decision of the ACCEA will be final. NON-CONSULTANT CAREER GRADE DOCTORS Any NCCGs who have chosen to remain on the old (pre-2008) contract have retained the right to apply for discretionary points. Applications for points and the scoring, awarding and appeals process will be handled using an identical but separate process to the one described for Consultants in this policy. 16

17 7.0 Training and Implementation 7.1 Training There are no specific training requirements for the implementation of this policy. Former members of the LAC will make themselves available should any first time applicants require assistance with the process. Names will be published with the timetable for the employer based awards round. 7.2 Implementation The policy will communicated through the Trust s weekly briefing. Additionally a copy will be ed to the all consultant distribution list and NCCGs on the old contract at the time the local awards round opens. A copy of the policy is stored on the Trust s intranet. 7.3 Resources The Head of Medical HR is responsible for allocating the necessary support to ensure the local and national awards processes can be properly administered. 8.0 Trust Impact Assessments 8.1 Equality Impact Assessment An equality impact assessment has been undertaken on this policy and has not indicated that any additional considerations are necessary. 8.2 Environmental Impact Assessment 17

18 An environmental impact assessment has been undertaken on this policy and has not indicated that any additional considerations are necessary. 8.3 Here For You Assessment A We Are Here For You assessment has been undertaken on this policy and has not indicated that any additional considerations are necessary. 18

19 9.0 Policy / Procedure Monitoring Matrix Minimum requirement to be monitored Responsible individual/ group/ committee Process for monitoring e.g. audit Frequency of monitoring Responsible individual/ group/ committee for review of results Responsible individual/ group/ committee for development of action plan Responsible individual/ group/ committee for monitoring of action plan Annual Annual Chair of the LAC Head of Medical HR Feedback from LAC invited regarding effectiveness of the local award process Production of anonymous report Annual LAC members LAC members Director of HR Annual LAC members LAC members Director of HR 19

20 10.0 Relevant Legislation, National Guidance and Associated NUH Documents 10.1 Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards Guidance. (Separate guidance for applicants and employers is published annually.) Pay Circular for Medical and Dental. (Published annually to confirm the financial value of each level of award.) 20

21 Appendix 1 CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS GUIDANCE ON COMPLETION OF APPLICATION FORM 1. The allocation of CEAs will be based on the information provided in consultants completed Application Form. If a domain is blank, or lacks dates, it will be scored as zero (0). Remember that NUH has a large Consultant body many if not most of the awards committee will not know you or your work. Do not assume therefore that any panel member is aware of your contributions in any domain. 2. The Application Form should be regarded in the same light as an application for a job. It should be complete, concise and give specific dates. If you already hold an award and are applying for a higher level the information provided must relate to sustained and improved achievements since the previous award was granted. Care should be taken to avoid duplication between domains. 3. The template for the agreed application form is attached at Appendix 3. This is for reference purposes only as applications must be completed electronically using the most up to date version of the form. This will be ed to all consultants when the employer based round opens 4. A strict limit has been imposed on the number of words that may be entered into the form. The font size has been fixed at 12 pt. If you alter the word limit your entire application will be rejected. 5. Only the appropriate application form may be used - forms which differ from this will not be accepted. The form must be submitted electronically and no additional information may be submitted to the LAC. The additional forms provided by the ACCEA are not accepted by the Trust s LAC and will be disregarded if submitted all applicants must complete the domains on the main application (the CVQ). 6. Canvassing will disqualify the applicant. 7. The secretary to the LAC will aggregate the scores and rankings and determine the average score and overall ranking. The totals will then be 21

22 used to rank candidates and assist the panel in recommending the appropriate level of award. 8. The scoring process may well take into account the other factors within the Application Form, including the level of award already held, and consistently sustained performance over many years. Committee members may take these factors into account in determining the level of award. 9. Please note all applications will be audited by members of the LAC for compliance with completion criteria. This will entail a comparison of the completed Application form from the last previous successful award with the new submission. Lack of dates and/or little or no demonstrable new evidence will reflect in the scores achieved. Avoid the thoughtless application of cut and paste 10. Previous members of the LAC are available to advise colleagues who are applying for a CEA. Contact names will be published at the time the employer based awards round opens. 22

23 Appendix 2 CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS PROCESS OF EVALUATION ( SCORING SCHEME) Principles 1. Clinical Excellence Awards are granted in recognition of exceptional personal contributions equally of local, national and international significance - made by individual doctors who show a commitment to achieving the delivery of high quality care to patients and to the continuous improvement of the NHS. Awards are not seniority payments. 2. To warrant consideration for an award, awards committees will look for performance over and above that normally expected in respect of service to patients, teaching and the management and development of the service. In general the LAC will expect a record of demonstrable achievement from consultants seeking consideration for an award which is dated, verifiable, objective evidence of excellence across a range of the criteria listed below; success in only one of these areas will not normally be sufficient. 3. LAC members will be mindful of whether applicants are receiving payment as part of their contract or job plan in relation to an element which they cite in their application. Above all, LAC members are concerned to assess and reward demonstrable achievement. 4. The various sections and associated domains should seek to evidence the most important examples of the consultant s local, national and international work. For those already holding awards and applying for a higher level the information provided must relate to sustained and improved achievements since the previous award was granted. 5. The LAC will give due consideration to each application received through a process of review of evidence of achievement, supported by informed debate. 6. Individual members of the LAC are required to score applicants using the matrix developed for this purpose under each of the application form sections, recording a individual score Subsequently, a committee average 23

24 score and average ranking will be determined by the LAC Secretariat prior to the LAC meeting to decide awards. 7. Please note all applications will be audited against compliance with data completion criteria (e.g. dates of achievement/responsibilities; sustained performance and additional achievement since previous award). This will enable a comparison of completed Application form from previous awarding year with new submission. Lack of dates and/or little or no demonstrable new evidence will be reflected in scoring. 8. Where information is essentially duplicated from a previous successful application then that information will be ignored. If that means that a section is essentially blank it will receive a zero score. Further, the duplication will be brought to the attention of the LAC, who will review whether the nature of the duplication will impact on any award they may wish to make. 9. Where information is repeated between domains then LAC members will use their discretion to establish whether the contribution is being repeated and is to be ignored, or whether there are different dimensions of the specific contribution being highlighted. 10.In scoring applications LAC members will, for applicants for points 1 to 6, consider whether an additional mark might be applied to recognise outstanding contribution in any one criteria. Up to 10 additional points may be awarded on the condition that the criteria in question had scored 10. The application of such weighting will be reported to the LAC and reviewed by them before the awards are made. DOMAIN 1 delivering a high-quality service Leadership role in service delivery by a team, with evidence of outstanding contribution. Innovative contribution to clinical governance and/or service delivery. Evidence presented may include significant audits and publications and the take-up of the innovations elsewhere. Exemplary standards in dealing with patients, relatives and all grades of medical and other staff. Applicants should ideally include reference to a validated patient or carers survey, or feedback on the service (external or peer review reports). 24

25 0 (No Evidence) Lack of dates and/or little or no demonstrable new evidence. Blank domain or evidence which fails to demonstrate relevant information. 2 (Meets contractual expectations) Performance in some aspects of the role could be assessed as over and above expected standards. But generally, on the evidence provided, contractual obligations are fulfilled to competent standards and no more. 6 (Over and above contractual expectations) Some duties are performed in line with the criteria for Excellent, as below. However, on the evidence provided, most are delivered above contractual expectations, without being in the highest category. 10 (Excellent) Contracted post is carried to the highest standards. Evidence for this should come from benchmarking exercises or objective reviews by outside agencies. Where this is not available, there should be other evidence that the work undertaken is outstanding in relation to service delivery and outcomes when compared to that of peers. DOMAIN 2 developing a high-quality service Service delivery introduction of, or demonstrable innovation in new procedures, treatments, or service delivery including services becoming more patient-centred and accessible Relevant, completed audit cycles that have resulted in demonstrable change in practice. Clinical governance a local or national leadership role in relation to governance; introduction or development of clinical governance approaches which have resulted in advances in care and safety (including, for example, work with the Governance Faculty, NIhCE, CQC) Leadership in the development of the applicant s specialty at local, regional or national level. Evidence of active patient and public involvement. 0 (No Evidence) Lack of dates and/or little or no demonstrable new evidence. Blank domain or evidence which fails to demonstrate relevant information. 25

26 2 (Meets contractual expectations) The applicant has fully achieved their service-based goals and provided comprehensive services to a consistently high level. But there is no evidence of them making any major enhancements or improvements. 6 (Over and above contractual expectations) The applicant has made high-quality service developments, improvements or innovations that have resulted in a better and more effective service delivery. 10 (Excellent) Sustained improvements at local level; Significant contributions which have led to improvements at a regional or national level. DOMAIN 3 managing a high-quality service involvement in shaping policy, aimed at modernising health services planning and delivery of developments in services; Other evidence of exceptional activity and achievement. 0 (No assessable contribution in this domain) Lack of dates and/or little or no demonstrable new evidence. Blank domain or evidence which fails to demonstrate relevant information. 2 (Meets contractual expectations) Applicants should receive this score if they are delivering the expected level of service, including contributing to the development of their own speciality locally and membership of local committees. Appraisal and assessment of junior medical staff would be recognised at this level. 6 (Over and above contractual expectations) Applicants must demonstrate achievements in one or more of the following areas -: clinical outcomes, patient experience, research, education, staff satisfaction or value for money. They may also have been involved in Trustwide, Regional or National committee/policy/project work, with demonstrable personal contribution and outcomes. Other criteria that would merit this score include effective leadership of a Trust or University service/function as, for example, clinical director. Appraisal of Peers may also be a feature. 10 (Excellent) 26

27 Applicants scoring 10 in this domain will have shown evidence of outstanding achievement in a leadership role, including planning and development of services or education. Clinical Managers or office holders of colleges or specialist societies should not be given this score purely because they hold the post there must be clear evidence that they have distinguished themselves in the role in question. DOMAIN 4 research and innovation Note Assessment of this domain will be influenced by the contract held and the time that is allocated within that contract conducting research. So, for an academic consultant, evidence will be measured against the output expected from the applicant s peers. In determining this, particular consideration will be given to the view of the Dean of the Medical School. Influence on the understanding, management and treatment of disease Active involvement in research projects Publications in peer-reviewed journals Markers of eminence 0 (No assessable contribution in this domain) Lack of dates and/or little or no demonstrable new evidence. Blank domain or evidence which fails to demonstrate relevant information. 2 (Meets contractual expectations) If the applicant is an academic consultant, they will be research active at a level commensurate with their contract. This rating would be based on the applicant s research output and associated publications within the past five years. If the applicant is an NHS consultant, they will have actively encouraged research by junior staff and supervised their work, and participated in national enquiries (e.g. CEPOD). 6 (Over and above contractual expectations) There will be evidence of the applicant having made a sustained personal contribution in basic or clinical research demonstrated by: o a lead or collaborative role, holding grants; o a role as a significant collaborator in clinical trials or other types of research; o a publication record in peer-reviewed journals; o supervision of doctorate/post-doctorate fellows; 27

28 o other markers of research standing such as lectures/invited demonstrations. 10 (Excellent) The applicant s research work will be of considerable importance by its influence on the understanding, management or prevention of disease. This will be demonstrated by evidence of the following: o Major peer-reviewed grants held for which the applicant is the principal investigator or main research lead. They should have included the title, duration and value. o Research publications in high citation journals.* o National or international presentations/lectures/demonstrations given on research. o Other peer-determined markers of research eminence (*a list of leading journals is available on the ACCEA website) DOMAIN 5 teaching and training Note All consultants are expected to undertake teaching and training, and applicants must identify excellence that is over and above their contractual responsibilities beyond simply fulfilling the role. Academic colleagues have particular contractual requirements in relation to their work for the University. leadership and innovation in teaching locally, nationally or internationally. undergraduate and/or postgraduate examination supervision of postgraduate degree students. contribution to the education of other health and social care professionals 0 (No assessable contribution in this domain) Lack of dates and/or little or no demonstrable new evidence. Blank domain or evidence which fails to demonstrate relevant information. 2 (Meets contractual expectations) Evidence of having fulfilled the teaching/training expectations identified in the job plan, in terms of quality and quantity. 6 (Over and above contractual expectations) Applicants should present evidence in the following areas: 28

29 Formal training in teaching and/or training through courses such as Training the Trainers and Institute of Learning and Teaching (ILT) membership. The quality of teaching and/or training through regular audit and mechanisms such as 360-degree appraisal. This should include evidence of adaptation and modification, where appropriate, of these skills as a result of this feedback. Involvement in quality assurance of teaching, with work for regulatory bodies involved with teaching and training. High performance in formal roles such as head of training/programme director, regional advisor, clinical tutor etc. 10 (Excellent) In addition to achievements listed in 6, applicants should show evidence of performance over and above the standard expected in the following: Leadership and innovation in teaching, including: o new course development; o innovative assessment methods; o introduction of new learning techniques; Authorship of successful textbooks or other media on teaching/training. Educational leadership, such as external presentations, invitations to lecture, and publications on educational matters. Innovation in teaching and training, including examination processes, for a college, faculty, specialist society or other professional body. 29

30 ACCEA FORM A (Application Form) Employer-Based Award APPENDIX Round (NUH Version) CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS SCHEME APPLICATION FORM It is the consultant s responsibility to ensure that this form is fully completed all boxes must be completed Part 1 to be completed by the Applicant Surname: Forename: Professional Title: Application type: Applying for Level 9 Yes No Division: Employer(s) name(s) with number of sessions per employer (Lead NHS employer first) List of consultant appointments in date order Accredited specialties (main first) Year appointed to the consultant grade Primary medical qualification (date and institution) Subsequent qualifications (date and institution) Current level: Year awarded: Ethnic origin: Preferred address for correspondence address: Work Tel. No. (direct line) GMC/GDC Reg. No. You cannot complete this form without using the ACCEA Guide for Applicants, to which you must adhere strictly 30

31 JOB PLAN List agreed programmed or other activities relevant to the NHS. a) Total number of remunerated PAs for NUH b) Number of DCC PAs c) Number of SPAs Please describe any specific responsibilities for teaching and training, service development, clinical management, research or clinical governance d) Number of APAs Please describe any other unremunerated activity undertaken for the Trust e) Do you have any managerial responsibilities eg Head of Service, Lead Clinician, Training Programme Director Domains DOMAIN 1: DELIVERING A HIGH QUALITY SERVICE (see Guide) (Box limited to 1350 characters) DOMAIN 2: DEVELOPING A HIGH QUALITY SERVICE (see Guide) (Box limited to 1350 characters) DOMAIN 3: MANAGING AND LEADING A HIGH QUALITY SERVICE (see Guide) (Box limited to 1350 characters) DOMAIN 4: CONTRIBUTING TO THE NHS THROUGH RESEARCH AND INNOVATION (see Guide) (Box limited to 1350 characters) Within the last 5 years, indicate how many publications you have had, how many of these were in peer reviewed journals and list the 3 most important ones. No other text is allowed. (Text limit 1350 characters) DOMAIN 5: CONTRIBUTING TO THE NHS THROUGH TEACHING AND TRAINING (see Guide) (Box limited to 1350 characters) I declare: Applicant Declaration 31

32 that to the best of my belief this information is accurate and I am not aware of any disciplinary or professional conduct and performance issues against me I have attached a copy of my agreed and in date job plan I have attached a copy of my last successful application form (if applicable). If an electronic version is not available, a scanned copy must be attached. Full Name Once complete, all forms to your Head of Service by Please save electronic copies of all forms as these may be required for future applications Part 2 to be completed by the Head of Service a) Is the consultant to the best of your knowledge working to the standards of professional and personal conduct required by the GMC and/or the GDC? Has the consultant during the last 12 months: b) had a formal appraisal c) has an agreed and in date job plan d) fulfilled his/her contractual obligations e) completed all his/her mandatory training f) complied with the private practice code of conduct? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No g) Are you aware of any actual or potential disciplinary or professional proceedings inside or outside the Trust? Yes No If the answer to (a-g) is No or the answer to (g) is Yes, further details must be supplied. (Box limited to about 500 characters) Head of Service Declaration I confirm that to the best of my belief this information is accurate and a true reflection of the consultant s achievements for the award year Full Name Position Held Once complete, all forms (current and previous) to Julie Halford, HR Secretary, Human Resources 32

33 by Part 3 to be completed by the Local Awards Committee (LAC) Member Assessment by domain For each of the domains please indicate your assessment of the candidate in terms of contribution to work for the primary employer and the wider environment of health care locally, eg in the SHA or Deanery. You are not asked to judge national or international contributions. 10 (Excellent) 6 (Over and above contractual expectations) 2 (Meets contractual expectations) 0 (No assessable contribution in this domain) Domains Please note that additional points may be awarded on the condition that the criteria in question had scored 10. Once the domains have been scored please transfer scores to the electronic spreadsheet provided and return to Julie Halford, HR Secretary, Human Resources by 33

34 34

35 Insert templates of relevant impact assessments (page break after each) APPENDIX 4 Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) Form (Please complete all sections) Q1. Date of Assessment: February 2017 Q2. For the policy and its implementation answer the questions a c below against each characteristic (if relevant consider breaking the policy or implementation down into areas) Protected Characteristic a) Using data and supporting information, what issues, needs or barriers could the protected characteristic groups experience? i.e. are there any known health inequality or access issues to consider? b) What is already in place in the policy or its implementation to address any inequalities or barriers to access including under representation at clinics, screening The area of policy or its implementation being assessed: See answer to question 4 Race and Ethnicity Gender Age Religion Disability c) Please state any barriers that still need to be addressed and any proposed actions to eliminate inequality 35

36 Sexuality Pregnancy and Maternity Gender Reassignment Marriage and Civil Partnership Socio-Economic Factors (i.e. living in a poorer neighbour hood / social deprivation) Area of service/strategy/function Q3. What consultation with protected characteristic groups inc. patient groups have you carried out? None Q4. What data or information did you use in support of this EQIA? At the end of each awards round an equality and diversity report is generated. The report is reviewed annually by the Local Awards Committee to ensure that the distribution of applicants and awards is broadly in line with the makeup of the pool of eligible doctors. To date the monitoring has not identified that any additional considerations are necessary. Q.5 As far as you are aware are there any Human Rights issues be taken into account such as arising from surveys, questionnaires, comments, concerns, complaints or compliments? 36

37 Not applicable Q.6 What future actions needed to be undertaken to meet the needs and overcome barriers of the groups identified or to create confidence that the policy and its implementation is not discriminating against any groups What By Whom By When Resources required Continue to produce an annual equality and diversity report Head of Medical HR End of each awards round None Q7. Review date February