Cargando…
Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence
OBJECTIVES: 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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10255136/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37263695 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068602 |
_version_ | 1785056798441472000 |
---|---|
author | Treadgold, Bethan M Campbell, John L Abel, Gary A Sussex, Jon Froud, Robert Hocking, Lucy Pitchforth, Emma |
author_facet | Treadgold, Bethan M Campbell, John L Abel, Gary A Sussex, Jon Froud, Robert Hocking, Lucy Pitchforth, Emma |
author_sort | Treadgold, Bethan M |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10255136 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102551362023-06-10 Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence Treadgold, Bethan M Campbell, John L Abel, Gary A Sussex, Jon Froud, Robert Hocking, Lucy Pitchforth, Emma BMJ Open Qualitative Research OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10255136/ /pubmed/37263695 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068602 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Qualitative Research Treadgold, Bethan M Campbell, John L Abel, Gary A Sussex, Jon Froud, Robert Hocking, Lucy Pitchforth, Emma Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence |
title | Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence |
title_full | Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence |
title_fullStr | Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence |
title_full_unstemmed | Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence |
title_short | Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence |
title_sort | investigating clinical excellence and impact awards (incea): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence |
topic | Qualitative Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10255136/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37263695 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068602 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT treadgoldbethanm investigatingclinicalexcellenceandimpactawardsinceaaqualitativestudyintohowcurrentassessorsandotherkeystakeholdersdefineandscoreexcellence AT campbelljohnl investigatingclinicalexcellenceandimpactawardsinceaaqualitativestudyintohowcurrentassessorsandotherkeystakeholdersdefineandscoreexcellence AT abelgarya investigatingclinicalexcellenceandimpactawardsinceaaqualitativestudyintohowcurrentassessorsandotherkeystakeholdersdefineandscoreexcellence AT sussexjon investigatingclinicalexcellenceandimpactawardsinceaaqualitativestudyintohowcurrentassessorsandotherkeystakeholdersdefineandscoreexcellence AT froudrobert investigatingclinicalexcellenceandimpactawardsinceaaqualitativestudyintohowcurrentassessorsandotherkeystakeholdersdefineandscoreexcellence AT hockinglucy investigatingclinicalexcellenceandimpactawardsinceaaqualitativestudyintohowcurrentassessorsandotherkeystakeholdersdefineandscoreexcellence AT pitchforthemma investigatingclinicalexcellenceandimpactawardsinceaaqualitativestudyintohowcurrentassessorsandotherkeystakeholdersdefineandscoreexcellence |