Judging Criteria

Online judging will take place from 17 June and will score projects against the following criteria: 

There are 5 criteria areas for all categories. The specific criteria for each category is available to refer under each of the category page.

  • Ambition - The challenge and context within which your project, person or organisation is set alongside your goals and targets whether quantitative or qualitative, and how this aligns with national priorities.
  • Collaboration - The stakeholders' involvement in co-designing and delivering the project. How have patients, staff at all levels, communities and other parties worked together to realise the outcomes?  
  • Impact - The measurable benefits delivered to patients, staff, your organisation or the wider system. Provide data and evidence showing improvements to outcomes, quality, access, equity or efficiency.
  • Scale - How your work has been shared, adopted or replicated beyond your immediate team or organisation. This includes dissemination through publications, presentations, toolkits, partnerships or inspiring similar initiatives elsewhere.
  • Sustainability - The potential for the project/work to continue and create lasting impact. Evidence of how it can be sustained or built upon. 
     

Scoring Matrix

Numerical Score 
Criteria
0
The question has not been answered, left blank or contains very little wording or relevance 
1
A rudimentary answer has been provided, for example, 1 or 2 sentences which do not layout any evidence but may have just simply made simple statements 
2
A little more detail on the submission which has made a basic attempt to answer the question but lack substance, evidence or qualifying figures 
3
Has evidence supporting a more detailed response but the evidence is lacking qualifying factors such as testimonials, quantitative or qualitative information 
4
A detailed answer with limited supporting material but which might not relate directly to the topic area of the category or the specific entry criteria
5
The entrant has answered the question and provided limited supporting material, however the material may be general and is not referenced clearly  
6
A detailed well written answer covering the criteria and has in part used supporting material but could be considered standard practice
7
A detailed comprehensive answer covering the criteria and going further to communicate results with relevant supporting material whilst going beyond standard practice might not be considered innovative or difficult  
8
As above with well referenced and relevant supporting material showing results achieved in difficult circumstances with the stakeholders buy in to the entry
9
As above but including innovative solutions, clearly laid out methodology, multiple or highly relevant examples of stakeholder support in the entry.
Supporting material has a clear referencing structure which demonstrates clear qualitative or quantitative verifiable evidence
10
Truly innovative or ground-breaking entries only should be awarded the top score. Entries should have met the criteria and should be shining examples of best practice with exemplary supporting material