The National Clinical Impact Awards: cosmetic change or fundamental reform?

Essex, Ryan; Rao, M. R.; Mir, Fraz; Surash, Surash; Exworthy, Mark

doi:10.1177/01410768221108499

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Assessors in our study emphasised the subjective nature of assessment and explained that they may develop their own personal strategies to guard against their own potential biases, and against challenges encountered with assessing the evidence presented. Such strategies did not necessarily correspond with ACCEA assessor guidelines 14. Challenges included the diversity of job roles represented in applications and variation in the presentational quality of evidence submitted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Future research could involve further qualitative interviews to explore the views and experiences of assessors and applicants with the revised NCEAs scheme around the practicalities, and equitableness of the scoring process, as well as the fairness of providing evidence for the application. Further interviews could also explore whether new training materials developed by ACCEA to support prospective applicants to apply have, as intended, reduced potential barriers for marginalised groups of doctors 14. Finally, future research should explore the role of patient outcomes in the assessment of NCEA applications, given existing concerns around the general lack of evidence on patient outcomes in current assessment 4…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe National Clinical Excellence Awards (NCEAs) in England and Wales were designed, as a form of performance-related pay, to reward high-performing senior doctors and dentists. To inform future scoring of applications and subsequent schemes, we sought to understand how current assessors and other stakeholders would define excellence, differentiate between levels of excellence and ensure unbiased definitions and scoring.DesignSemistructured qualitative interview study.Participants25 key informants were identified from Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards subcommittees, and relevant professional organisations in England and Wales. Informants were purposively sampled to achieve variety in gender and ethnicity.FindingsParticipants reported that NCEAs had a role in incentivising doctors to strive for excellence. They were consistent in identifying ‘clinical excellence’ as involving making an exceptional difference to patients and the National Health Service, and in going over and above the expectations associated with the doctor’s job plan. Informants who were assessors reported: encountering challenges with the current scoring scheme when seeking to ensure a fair assessment; recognising tendencies to score more or less leniently; and the potential for conscious or unconscious bias in assessments. Particular groups of doctors, including women, doctors in some specialties and settings, doctors from minority ethnic groups, and doctors who work less than full time, were described as being less likely to self-nominate, lacking support in making applications or lacking motivation to apply on account of a perceived likelihood of not being successful. Practical suggestions were made for improving support and training for applicants and assessors.ConclusionsParticipants in this qualitative study identified specific concerns in respect of the current approaches adopted in applying for and in assessing NCEAs, pointing to the importance of equity of opportunity to apply, the need for regular training for assessors, and to improved support for applicants and potential applicants.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In January 2022 the UK government announced an update to the Clinical Excellence Award scheme, to be called the National Clinical Impact Awards. [ 40 ] The stated aims of the new scheme were to (1) broaden access, (2) make the application process simpler, fairer and more inclusive, and (3) ensure the scheme rewards and incentivises excellence across a broader range of work and behaviours. [ 41 ] If our institutional memory and experience model has value, we would anticipate that an analysis of this latest iteration of a national merit award scheme will yield similar rankings to those demonstrated in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A national analysis of the medical schools of training for merit award-winning laboratory medical doctors working in Britain

Steele

Andrade

2023

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To inform the discussion regarding the origins of Laboratory Medical Consultant clinical merit award holders (LMC) whether the awards came from the Clinical Excellence Awards (CEA) or Distinction Awards (DA) schemes. Methods Setting - CEA is a scheme to financially reward senior doctors in England and Wales who are assessed to be working over and above the standard expected of their role. The DA scheme is the parallel and equivalent scheme in Scotland. Participants - All of the merit award holders in the 2019 round. Design - This involved a secondary analysis of the complete 2019 published dataset of award winners. Statistical analyses were performed with Chi-square tests set at p < 0.05 level for statistical significance. Results The top five medical schools (London University, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Oxford) were responsible for 68.4% of the LMC merit award holders in the 2019 round. 97.9% of the LMC merit award holders were from European medical schools, whereas 90.9% of the non-LMC award holders were from European medical schools. The LMCs with A plus or platinum awards came from only six medical schools: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, London University, Oxford, Sheffield and Southampton. In contrast, the B or silver/bronze LMC award holders came from a more diverse background of 13 medical schools. Conclusions The majority of LMC merit award holders originated from only five university medical schools. All the LMCs with A plus or platinum awards came from only six university medical schools. There is an apparent overrepresentation of a small number of medical schools of origin amongst those LMCs that hold national merit awards.

show abstract

“…It’s also controversial when it comes to selecting nominees for national awards for clinicians, with the jury still being out on whether the latest reforms have fixed the problems. 7…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It's also controversial when it comes to selecting nominees for national awards for clinicians, with the jury still being out on whether the latest reforms have fixed the problems. 7 What's clear though is that the global crisis of trust, accelerated by the pandemic and the cost of living crisis, is so entrenched that it has begun to weaken the once breakable bond of trust between patients and doctors. Trust is a barometer of the state of our world and the barometer is reading red.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A global crisis of trust that’s a symptom of global failure

Abbasi¹

2022

J R Soc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The National Clinical Impact Awards: cosmetic change or fundamental reform?

Cited by 10 publications

References 8 publications

Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence

Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence

A national analysis of the medical schools of training for merit award-winning laboratory medical doctors working in Britain

A global crisis of trust that’s a symptom of global failure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About