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

Author:

Treadgold Bethan MORCID,Campbell John L,Abel Gary AORCID,Sussex Jon,Froud Robert,Hocking Lucy,Pitchforth Emma

Abstract

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.

Funder

National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference15 articles.

1. Paying hospital specialists: experiences and lessons from eight high-income countries;Quentin;Health Policy,2018

2. The Scottish Academy . The Scottish academy commission on recognising excellence in healthcare. 2021.

3. Department of Health . Consultation on the Northern Ireland clinical excellence awards scheme 2012-13 and 2013-14; 2015.

4. UK Department of Health and Social Care . Triennial review of the advisory committee on clinical excellence awards (ACCEA); 2015.

5. ACCEA annual report . Annual report of the advisory committee on clinical excellence awards (ACCEA), covering the 2019 competition for national clinical excellence awards in England and Wales. 2020. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/982329/accea-annual-report-2020.pdf

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3