This policy and procedure sets out the Trust Policy and Procedure for allocating Local Consultant Clinical Excellence Awards

Clinical Excellence Awards 10.03 SECTION: HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY /PROCEDURE: 10.03 NATURE AND SCOPE: SUBJECT (Title): POLICY AND PROCEDURE - TRUST WIDE CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS This policy and procedure sets out the Trust Policy and Procedure for allocating Local Consultant Clinical Excellence Awards DATE OF LATEST RATIFICATION: OCTOBER 2015 RATIFIED BY: LNC & HR CORE GROUP IMPLEMENTATION DATE: OCTOBER 2015 ASOCIATED TRUST POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: Discretionary /Optional Points for Eligible Medical Staff Policy and ProcedureTrust Policy & Procedure - 10.13 ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST UCLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS UCONTENTS 1.0 Policy 1.1 Background and Description 1.2 Single Equality Scheme 1.3 Scope and Application (Eligibility) 1.4 Annual Investment 1.5 National ( Higher ) Awards 2.0 Employer Based Awards Committee 2.1 Role of the EBAC 2.2 Membership of the EBAC 3.0 Application Process 3.1 Timetable 3.2 Sign Off by Senior Manager 3.3 Completion of Forms 3.4 Level 9 Applications 3.5 Review of Level 9 Awards 4.0 Divisional Scoring Panels 4.1 Role and Membership 4.2 Process 5.0 Evaluation and Awards 5.1 Decision Making 5.2 Notification 5.3 Feedback 6.0 Appeals Process 6.1 Principles 6.2 Membership of Appeal Panel 6.3 Appeal Format 6.4 Appeal Outcome 7.0 Target Audience 8.0 Consultation 9.0 Legislative Compliance 10.0 Monitoring and Evaluation 11.0 Equality Impact Assessment 12.0 Champion and Expert Writer ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 2

13.0 Review Date Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Guidance on Completion of Application Form Process of Evaluation Guidance on Scoring Application Forms Record of Changes Employee Record of Having Read the Policy ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 3

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST UCLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS 1.0 UPOLICY 1.1 UBackground and Description 1.1.1 Clinical Excellence Awards (CEAs) exist to recognise and reward the exceptional contribution of NHS consultants to the values and goals of the NHS and to patient care - over and above that normally expected in their role. Awards are therefore dependant on the demonstration of such contributions, and not on factors such as seniority or age. 1.1.2 The Clinical Excellence Awards (CEA) Scheme comprises both employer-based ( local ) and regional/national elements. Both parts of the Scheme are governed by the same criteria. Until 2013, both the local and regional/national awards were overseen across the NHS by the Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards (ACCEA), which is an independent, advisory Non-Departmental Public Body. However, since this date, ACCEA has only been responsible for the national awards, whilst individual Trusts have been given discretion to decide whether or not to allocate local awards. This document describes the process this Trust will follow in making employer based ( local ) awards. At paragraphs 1.5.1 and 1.5.2, it also describes how the Trust will manage its contribution to applications for national awards. 1.1.3 There are twelve levels of award, the first eight of which (Levels 1-8) will be awarded by an Employer Based Awards Committee (EBAC), chaired by the Chief Executive or nominated deputy. Either the ACCEA or the EBAC, depending on the type of achievement being recognised, may award Bronze/ Level 9 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. 1.1.4 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 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. 1.1.5 Clinical Excellence Awards are pensionable. On retirement, awards cease; they are consolidated into pension. Consultants who are re-employed after retirement do not retain eligibility for payment of their award. 1.1.6 Consultants will retain payment of Clinical Excellence Awards granted by one NHS employer on appointment to another NHS employer. 1.1.7 Consultants in receipt of 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 held by the consultant. 1.2 USingle Equality Scheme 1.2.1 In applying this policy, employers, employees and their representatives will have regard to the principles and requirements of the Trust s Single Equality Scheme. The Trust ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 4

is committed to equality, diversity and human rights. Accordingly the implementation of this policy and its impact will be monitored across all equality strands and reported regularly to the Trust Board. 1.2.2 Managers will not discriminate in the application of this policy in respect of age, disability, race, ethnic or national origin, gender, religion, beliefs, sexual orientation, marital/partnership status, social and employment status, gender identity, language, trade union membership or mental health status. 1.2.3 In all cases, full and sensitive consideration should be given to equality and diversity needs/requirements or issues that may exist when implementing this policy and procedure. It should be recognised that in some cases, the perceived behaviour of individuals may be a reflection of diverse backgrounds and identities and can be subject to misinterpretation. Therefore, judgments regarding an individual s behaviour should always be fully and appropriately informed, which may in some instances, require diversity specific/focused input, guidance/advice. 1.3 UScope and Eligibility 1.3.1 All consultants on national terms and conditions of service who have at least one year s consultant 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. 1.3.2 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 awards round. For example, an applicant who received an award of one point in 2014/15 can next reapply for a Trust ( local ) award in 2016/17. This provision does not apply to seeking support for applications for regional and national awards. 1.3.3 Academics and researchers with Honorary Consultant contracts are eligible for payment of Clinical Excellence Awards and will be 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). 1.3.4 Applications for Local Level 9 awards will not normally be considered where a consultant is in receipt of less than a Level 7 award or 7 discretionary points. 1.3.5 All awards made by the Trust at Level 9 are subject to five yearly reviews. 1.3.6 Any application for a Level 9 award must be supported by a citation prepared by their Clinical Director (or Associate Medical Director if the applicant is a Clinical Director). 1.3.7 Eligibility for an award is dependent upon fulfilment of all contractual obligations in relation to job planning review (including schedule of commitments and objectives including mandatory training), participation in an annual appraisal and compliance with the Private Practice Code of Conduct. Where these requirements are not met, circumstances will be considered on an individual basis. In addition, 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. 1.3.8 Locum Consultants are not eligible to apply for Clinical Excellence Awards. ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 5

1.3.9 The criteria to be used for assessing applications are attached at Appendix Two. The format of the Application Form is as specified by the ACCEA. However, additional forms for management, research and education contributions are no longer part of the local process and will not be submitted to the EBAC. These contributions should be recorded on the main application form within the required domains. 1.3.10 Any Non Consultant Career Grade Doctors 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 in accordance with the Trust Policy & Procedure 10.13 Discretionary/Optional Points for Eligible Medical Staff. 1.4 UAnnual Investment 1.4.1 The annual level of investment in new awards in the Trust will be based on the nationally prescribed formula. With effect from April 2011, 0.2 awards per eligible consultant per annum can be awarded at Trust level. 1.4.2 For the purposes of this calculation, the Forensic Services Division and the Health Partnerships/Local Services Divisions will be regarded separately, and the number of CEAs will be allocated on this basis. 1.4.3 The value of awards granted to part-time consultants will be on a pro-rata basis but parttimers will count as whole-time equivalents when the budget for new awards is calculated. 1.4.4 Awards are decided on a competitive basis, based on the relative merits of individual submissions, and can only be made by the EBAC or Appeals Panel. Applicants should be aware that the content of their application is vital to the ability of the EBAC 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. 1.5 UNational ( Higher ) AwardsU 1.5.1 Applications for national awards require the Chief Executive or nominated deputy 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. 1.5.2 A timetable relating to the national awards process is published by the ACCEA and by professional societies and colleges. The Trust will circulate a similar timetable each year to enable completion of the process described in 1.5.1. 1.5.3 Whilst there is no provision for it in the Terms & Conditions of Service, when a national award is not renewed by ACCEA, the individual concerned will return to the level of award they were in receipt of at the time of application for a Higher Award and may then apply for a local award in the subsequent round. 2.0 UEMPLOYER BASED AWARDS COMMITTEE 2.1 URole of the EBAC 2.1.1 The Local Scheme is based on a system of peer review (through the Divisional Scoring Panels), with managerial input organised through the EBAC. 2.1.2 The EBAC performs the following functions: ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 6

in P CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS 10.03 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 the Trust in respect of compliance with central and local guidance Propose improvements to the scheme to ensure its continued effective functioning Prepare an annual report in respect of local awards. 2.1.3 Proceedings are confidential, but the awards made will be published each year via the Chairs of the two Senior Medical Staff Committees. 2.1.4 Minutes of the EBAC s meetings will be made and will be available to applicants in the case of a formal appeal. 2.2 UMembership of the EBAC 2.2.1 The EBAC should have a minimum of 12 members, at least 50% of whom should be consultants who are Unot U a managerial role. Recommended membership is as follows: Chair of the Trust or nominated deputy - Lay member (Chair of the Committee) Chief Executive or nominated deputy Executive Medical Director or nominated deputy A Non-executive Director appointed by the Trust Chair or an External Lay Representative Senior HR Representative Medical Academic Representative Chairs of Divisional Scoring Panels & other consultant representatives from the Scoring Panels Chairs of the two Senior Medical Staff Committees The Chair of the Local Negotiating Committee or nominated deputy, as observer Service User Representative 2.2.2 The EBAC 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) present. 3.0 UAPPLICATION PROCESS 3.1 UTimetable The annual timetable for the local awards is as follows: November early December January - February March April All eligible consultants advised of their eligibility and invited st to apply for local clinical excellence awards by 31P December Scoring of applications undertaken by Divisional peer panels Employer Based Awards Committee meets to agree distribution of awards Applicants notified of outcomes and payments made to successful candidates A copy of the ratified procedure will be sent by email to all consultants at the beginning of November along with a copy of the NHS Consultants Clinical Excellence Awards Scheme Guide to Employer Based Awards, the timetable for the Local Employer Based Clinical Excellence Awards process and the relevant forms on which to make their ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 7

application. The deadline for the submission of completed applications to the Trust CEA Administrator will be clearly detailed on the email. Applications received after the deadline will not be considered under any circumstances. Appendix One contains guidance on applying for an award. 3.2 U Sign Off by Senior ManagerU 3.2.1 Prior to applications being submitted to the CEA Administrator, applicants must submit their application form to their Clinical Director for sign-off. The Clinical Director is expected to confirm that the Consultant is fulfilling his/her contractual terms and that the application is a true reflection of the Consultant s achievements. The Clinical Director will not be required to comment on the merits of the application. 3.2.2 Under normal circumstances, on receipt of the application the Clinical Director will either Agree with the contents as written and sign it off or Discuss some amendments with the applicant then sign off the amended form. 3.2.3 In the event of any disagreement between the applicant and the Clinical Director, the applicant may continue with their application as originally written, but the Clinical Director will submit a statement to explain why he or she is unable to sign it off. This statement will be shared with the consultant and a response invited. Both the statement and the response will be made available to the Divisional Scoring Panels and the EBAC. 3.2.4 If the applicant is a Clinical Director, sign-off will be provided by the Associate Medical Director. 3.3 UCompletion of FormsU 3.3.1 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. 3.3.2 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. Information which precedes a previous award will be disregarded. 3.4 ULevel 9 applicationsu Applications for Level 9 awards must be supported by a citation from the relevant Clinical Director. Where the applicant is a Clinical Director, the citation will be prepared by the relevant Associate Medical Director and approved by the appropriate Executive Director. 3.5 UReview of Level 9 awardsu 3.5.1 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 1st October of the year in question. 3.5.2 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 ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 8

criteria for the scheme. In addition, a citation by the relevant Clinical Director should 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. 3.5.3 If the paperwork submitted for review is deemed insufficient to merit renewal of the award, 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. 3.5.4 In exceptional circumstances the Trust may request for the Level 9 award to be revoked by the EBAC. These exceptional circumstances include -: Disciplinary action in relation to gross misconduct Dismissal by the Trust on the grounds of capability (related to performance, but not health) or conduct Imposition of a formal sanction by the GMC 4.0 UDIVISIONAL SCORING PANELS 4.1 URole and Membership 4.1.1 Two Divisional Scoring Panels will be set up by the respective Senior Medical Staff Committees: one to consider the applications from consultants in the Local Services and Health Partnerships Divisions, the other to consider applications from the Forensic Services Division. The Chairs of these panels will be appointed by the relevant SMSC and will be responsible for organising the membership and the scoring and ranking of the applications received. Consultant representatives should be drawn from a relevant cross section to reflect the specialties and diversity of the Divisions and should include at least one non-award holder. It is also desirable that panel members have a range of award levels. 4.1.2 The committees will contain an academic representative if an application has been received from a consultant with academic responsibilities. 4.1.3 Only in the most exceptional circumstances should a consultant who has applied for an award (or a consultant with an interest in one of the applications) sit on a divisional scoring panel, and this circumstance must be agreed to be exceptional by the Executive Medical Director. The Panel Chair has responsibility for clarifying this with the Medical Director. Should this occur the consultant will neither score nor be present at discussion of said application. 4.2 UProcess 4.2.1 The Divisional Scoring Panels will have available to them the last UsuccessfulU application of each applicant, in order to minimise the risk of the same information being rewarded twice. It should be noted that ongoing clinical excellence merits consideration for being rewarded. Only the information on the application will be taken into account when scoring and ranking the applications. 4.2.2 Although the details of the ranking system are for the panels to decide, in order to promote objectivity and consistency it is encouraged that the process should be based upon a mathematical analysis of scores rather than a discursive consideration of the respective merits of the applications. ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 9

4.2.3 Applications from consultants in the Health Partnerships & Bassetlaw Division will be scored by the Local Services Panel with the assistance of a local expert in the relevant field (eg Palliative Care) who is acceptable to both management and the Scoring Panel. 4.2.4 Members of the Scoring Panels will independently review completed application forms (copies of previous successful application will be provided for cross-checking) and record their scores for each applicant on the score sheet, which will be provided by the CEA Administrator. In doing so they will use the scoring system as set out in Appendix Two, which can be summarised as -: Score Category 10 Excellent 6 Over and above contractual requirements 2 Meets contractual requirements 0 Does not meet contractual requirements or when insufficient evidence has been produced to make a judgement 4.2.5 On completion of the collation and analysis, the Chairs of the Divisional Scoring Panels will convene a meeting to decide the ranking of the applicants and make a recommendation regarding the allocation of CEAs to the applicants. It is this recommendation which will be considered by the EBAC, who will make the awards. 4.2.6 Individual members of divisional scoring panels will not be named in the notes of the meeting. 5.0. UEVALUATION & AWARDSU 5.1 UDecision Making U 5.1.1 An overall score and ranking score listing will be issued to EBAC members at least five working days before the EBAC meeting. This listing will assist to facilitate the identification of the relative merits of applicant s submissions and subsequent recommendation of award level(s). 5.1.2 The EBAC 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 EBAC. 5.1.3 The EBAC shall then establish whether any applicants are deserving of an award of two or three (or more) levels of award. 5.1.4 The EBAC 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. 5.2 UNotificationU 5.2.1 The Trust CEA Administrator will, on behalf of the EBAC, write to all successful applicants as soon as possible after the meeting, informing them of the decision and subsequent level of award. 5.2.2 Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing, of the outcome, along with details relating to obtaining feedback and the agreed appeals mechanism. ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 10

5.2.3 The Trust CEA Administrator will agree an annual report to the Board 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. 5.2.4 The list of award holders will be available to the consultant body via the two SMSC s. 5.3 UFeedback U Every effort will be made to provide feedback to unsuccessful applicants, where requested, in order to assist with future applications. The Medical Director or an HR Manager may be requested to provide feedback where this is deemed appropriate. 6.0 UAPPEALS PROCESSU 6.1 UPrinciplesU 6.1.1 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 Employer Based Awards Committee or the Divisional Scoring Panels. 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. 6.1.2 Examples of unfairness in the process might include -: Extraneous factors or material were unfairly taken into account. There has been unlawful discrimination, for example on the basis of gender, ethnicity, faith, disability, sexuality, membership of a trade union or age. The established evaluation processes were ignored. There was bias or conflict of interest on the part of the Committee. 6.1.3 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 Trust CEA Administrator. All appellants will be notified to the EBAC. 6.1.4 Informal steps to resolve the issue should be taken first, prior to instigating the formal process. Typically either the Medical Director or a Senior Member of the Human Resources Department 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. 6.2 UMembership of Appeal PanelU 6.2.1 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: A Trust Non-Executive Director as Chairman An Executive Director A Consultant (who has not applied or who is not eligible for a local award in the year in question) nominated by the relevant Senior Medical Staff Committee 6.3 UAppeal FormatU ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 11

6.3.1 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. 6.3.2 An appellant may be represented at the formal appeal hearing by a colleague (defined as someone employed by Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust or the University of Nottingham as applicable) or a Trade Union representative. Legal representation is not permitted. 6.3.3 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. 6.3.4 The EBAC will be represented by the Medical Director or a nominated deputy, who will submit the paperwork relevant to the appellant s application and its assessment. 6.3.5 The Appellant or representative shall state their case in the presence of the EBAC representative. The EBAC representative and members of the Appeal Panel, hearing the appeal, shall have the opportunity to ask questions of the Appellant/the representative. 6.3.6 The EBAC 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 EBAC representative. 6.3.7 The EBAC 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 EBAC representative, the Appellant and representative, will then withdraw. 6.3.8 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. 6.4 UAppeal OutcomeU 6.4.1 The Appeal Panel shall deliberate in private, only recalling both parties to clear points of uncertainty on evidence already given. If recall is necessary both parties shall return notwithstanding only one is concerned with the point giving rise to doubt. 6.4.2 The decision of the Appeal Panel will be announced at the end of the Hearing wherever possible. 6.4.3 The Appeal Chairman will write formally to the Appellant with the outcome within five working days of the decision. The EBAC 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 EBAC. 6.4.4 If successful, the Appellant will receive the revised allocation of CEAs backdated to 1 April in the relevant year. Alternatively the Appeal Panel may find that an award in the next round would be backdated. 7.0 UTARGET AUDIENCE 7.1 All consultant medical staff and honorary consultant medical staff. ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 12

8.0 UCONSULTATION 8.1 Consultation is via the Core Group, ELC and LNC. 9.0 ULEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE 9.1 Framework Document: The New NHS Consultant Reward Scheme: Clinical Excellence Awards (August 2003). 9.2 Equality Act 2010 10.0 UMONITORING AND EVALUATION 10.1 Each year, the Chair of the EBAC will invite members to comment on the effectiveness of the local awards process. In addition the EBAC is presented with a report that anonymously summarises the total applicants and successful applicants by Specialty and then by each of the diversity strands. If any concerns are identified these will be addressed for the following year s process. 10.2 The statistical details of the points awarded each year will be provided to the Trust Board. 11.0 UEQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 11.1 An Equality Impact Assessment has been completed in respect of this policy and has been undertaken by a Senior HR Manager. 12.0 UCHAMPION & EXPERT WRITER 12.1 The champion of this policy is the Medical Director and the Expert Writer is the HR Medical Staffing Adviser. 13.0 UREVIEW DATEU 13.1 This procedure will be reviewed as and when required but at least every 3 years. ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 13

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). 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 ensure minimal duplication between domains. 3. The Trust uses the standard ACCEA proforma therefore if any changes to format are identified in an individual application, or if there is a failure to meet the word limit requirement, the entire application will be rejected. 4. 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. The additional forms provided by the ACCEA are not accepted by the Trust and will be disregarded if submitted all applicants must complete the domains on the main application (the CVQ). 5. Canvassing will disqualify the applicant. 6. The Trust CEA Administrator will aggregate the scores and rankings and determine the average score and overall ranking. The totals will then be used to rank candidates and assist the panel in recommending the appropriate level of award. 7. 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. 8. Please note all applications will be audited by members of the Divisional Scoring Panels 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. ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 14

APPENDIX 2 CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS PROCESS OF EVALUATION GUIDANCE ON SCORING APPLICATION FORMS 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 EBAC 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. Both Divisional Scoring Panel members and EBAC 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, the Trust is 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 EBAC 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 Divisional Scoring Panels 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 score and average ranking will be determined by the CEA Administrator prior to the EBAC 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. Furthermore, the duplication will be brought to the attention of the EBAC, 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 panel 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. ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 15

Scoring Scheme All domains will be scored using the following scoring range: Score Category 10 Excellent 6 Over and above contractual requirements 2 Meets contractual requirements 0 Does not meet contractual requirements or when insufficient evidence has been produced to make a judgement The domains are as follows: Domain 1 Delivering a high quality service Domain 2 Developing a high quality service Domain 3 Leadership and Managing a high quality service Domain 4 Research & Innovation Domain 5 Teaching & Training The personal statement on the first page of the application is a summary of achievements and is not scored. The following weightings will be applied by the Trust CEA Administrator on receipt of the score sheets: Domain Area Weighting 1. Delivering a high quality service X5 2. Developing a high quality service X2 3. Managing a high quality service X2 4. Research X2 5. Teaching and training X2 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). 0 (No Evidence) Lack of dates and/or little or no demonstrable new evidence. Blank domain or evidence which fails to demonstrate relevant information. ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 16

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, NICE, 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. 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. ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 17

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 Trust-wide, 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) 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 University representative. Influence on the understanding, management and treatment of disease Active involvement in research projects Publications in peer-reviewed journals ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 18

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. 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: - a lead or collaborative role, holding grants; - a role as a significant collaborator in clinical trials or other types of research; - a publication record in peer-reviewed journals; - supervision of doctorate/post-doctorate fellows; - 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: - 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 - Research publications in high citation journals.* - National or international presentations/lectures/demonstrations given on research. - 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. ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 19

leadership and innovation in teaching locally, nationally or internationally. undergraduate and/or postgraduate examination CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS 10.03 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: - 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: new course development; innovative assessment methods; introduction of new learning techniques; Authorship of successful textbooks or other media on teaching/training. ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 20

- 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. ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 21

APPENDIX 3 Policy/Procedure for: CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS Issue: 01 Status: Author Name and Title: APPROVED Debbie Turner, Medical Staffing Adviser Issue Date: OCTOBER 2015 Review Date: SEPTEMBER 2018 Approved by: Distribution/Access: HR Core Group Normal RECORD OF CHANGES DATE AUTHOR POLICY/ PROCEDURE DETAILS OF CHANGE ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 22

APPENDIX 4 EMPLOYEE RECORD OF HAVING READ THE POLICY/PROCEDURE UTitle of Policy/ProcedureU: CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS 10.03 I have read and understand the principles contained in the named Policy/procedure. 0BPRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURE DATE ISSUE 1 OCTOBER 2015 23