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

The 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. Semistructured qualitative interview study. 25 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. Participants 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. Participants 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.

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: BMT, GAA, JS, RF, LH and EP declare no completing interests. JLC holds a national clinical excellence award. JLC has previously been both a member and Chair of a Regional Subcommittee of ACCEA, although had no involvement with ACCEA administration at the time the research was commissioned and undertaken.