NHS England » Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Awards 2024 – instruction pack for submitting a nomination for an award

Introduction to the Chief Allied Health Professions Officer (CAHPO) Awards 2024

The CAHPO awards is a unique opportunity for registered AHPs to receive recognition for their personal contributions towards delivery of exceptional care for patients. The awards promote adoption and dissemination of good practice being delivered by nominated AHPs and gives teams the chance to review their work and look at the impact they have made to services.

The information in this pack will support you in identifying what category you may wish to make a nomination for; how to ensure that you can complete the nomination form; how the nomination will be assessed and the timeline for submission, assessment and notification of winners. Please read the information carefully before submitting your nominations.

The Awards are open to all 14 Allied Health Professions and are for NHS or publicly funded initiatives/projects. You can either nominate yourself or another AHP. However, nominations of another AHP will be kept anonymous by the AHP Team.

The nomination period opens on Monday 29 April 2024 and closes at midnight on the Monday 3 June 2024. Questions can be directed to england.cahpo@nhs.net. Find us on Twitter/X @SuzanneRastrick or Instagram @chief_ahp_officer_england.

The categories for the awards are listed on our website here: NHS England » Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Awards 2024. It is recognised that some nominations may be applicable to more than one category. If you wish to nominate an individual, team, or innovation for more than one award, please ensure that you are able to identify the specific details relevant to each category you have chosen.

Awards nomination submission

Submission parameters

Parameters for submission:

option 1: written: 500-word limit
option 2: audio file/slides: embedded audio file recording of maximum 3 minutes
option 3: poster: 200-word limit and 1-page

Judges will not consider any content beyond these (word count/recording time) limits.

Submission platform

How and where to send your submission:

all submissions will be made via an online form hosted on www.engage.england.nhs.uk
if you are using a PowerPoint slide, this can be included as an attachment to your online submission form. Any issues in sending your attachment can be sent to england.cahpo@nhs.net for support

Judging and shortlisting criteria

1. Is the nomination address aligned to the impacts, priorities and commitments outlined in AHPs Deliver?

Score 3 (strong): strong alignment with several of the impacts, priorities and commitments in AHPs Deliver, and which demonstrates relevance to patient care, quality or service improvement
Score 2 (good/adequate): topic of relevance to one or more of the impacts, priorities and commitments in AHPs Deliver
Score 1 (lacking detail): topic only weakly linked to one of the impacts, priorities and commitments in AHPs Deliver
Score 0 (not explained or included): not relevant to AHPs Deliver

2. Is the problem/reason for implementing clearly defined?

Score 3 (strong): reason for initiative clearly defined, with use of comprehensive and relevant baseline data and evidence on quality, outcomes, including service-user experience
Score 2 (good/adequate): reason for initiative defined, with some use of relevant baseline data and evidence
Score 1 (lacking detail): reason for initiative defined but lacks adequate detail
Score 0 (not explained or included): not relevant to AHPs Deliver

3. Are aims and objectives for the initiative clearly defined?

Score 3 (strong): the aims and objectives are clearly articulated, SMART, and appropriate to the topic/area of practice. Clear link between aims and objectives and problem/reason for implementing
Score 2 (good/adequate): adequate description of SMART aims and objectives. Weak link to problem/reason for implementing
Score 1 (lacking detail): aims and objectives included but lack adequate detail. No clear link to the original problem identified
Score 0 (not explained or included): little or no SMART aims and objectives

4. Method and implementation approach

Score 3 (strong): implementation method clearly described and well executed, involving a structured approach, and including a range of stakeholders. Co-production is evidenced
Score 2 (good/adequate): method adequately described, with some description of stakeholders involved
Score 1 (lacking detail): method described but lacks useful detail and gaps in stakeholder engagement
Score 0 (not explained or included): little or no description of the method/approach used

5. Results, evaluation and demonstrating impact

Score 3 (strong): quantitative and qualitative data/findings clearly articulated and demonstrate the shift from baseline position. Impact on quality (experience, effectiveness, safety) and efficiency of care/services is presented
Score 2 (good/adequate): data/findings presented adequately, the shift from baseline is evident, however may be some gaps in demonstrating impact across quality or efficiency of care
Score 1 (lacking detail): data/findings briefly presented but lack adequate detail
Score 0 (not explained or included): data/findings insufficiently clear or misinterpreted

6. Key learning

Score 3 (strong): lessons learned that are of importance and relevance for future similar projects are included. This includes what didn’t work well as well as what did
Score 2 (good/adequate): a number of lessons learned, of relevance to similar projects and initiatives are articulated however there may be gaps in insights shared
Score 1 (lacking detail): minimal lessons learned are included but clear gaps in learning opportunities are apparent.
Score 0 (not explained or included): lesson learned not included, or not relevant to other projects or initiatives.

7. Sharing/implications for practise

Score 3 (strong): Clear, comprehensive, and ambitious plans for spread of adoption are in place and elements have already been enacted.
Score 2 (good/adequate): Plan for sharing/spread are included; but no evidence of delivery.
Score 1 (lacking detail): Some evidence of sharing but significant missed opportunities, minimal evidence of sharing/implications for practice.
Score 0 (not explained or included): No evidence of consideration or plans for sharing.