SCCI Prioritisation Tool

1. SCCI Prioritisation Tool Prototype for Presentation to SCCI Version: 0.3 Date: 20thMay 2014

2. Overview of the Tool • Assesses items against shared criteria using consistent scores • Summed scores enable work items to be positioned along dimensions of Expected Benefit and Ease of Delivery • Result is richer than a one dimensional list since it brings out the business relevance of relative positions • The tool does not automate decision making, but supports informed reflection and enables better decisions to be taken

3. Criteria: Expected Benefits • improve the safety of patients and/or service users • help individuals understand the types of care available • help individuals compare the quality of different providers • help individuals avoid illness, or manage their care needs • help individuals access services relevant to their care needs • help individuals access their own care records • improve accuracy, consistency or timeliness of care information • improve communication across organisational, geographical and system boundaries • improve the monitoring of outcomes in the quality of care provided • help commissioners reconcile service provided with that commissioned • help commissioners monitor the performance of service providers and identify potential cost savings or productivity gains • help regulators monitor the performance of service providers and identify patterns that indicate the need for further investigation.

4. Criteria: Ease of Delivery • firm budget commitment or confirmed that deliverable from existing budget • generates revenue or savings that cover implementation costs or accepted that investment need not be recouped • technical aspects well understood by development organisation • implementation will be within a context that is familiar and prepared • implementation requires minimal change to existing IT supplier contracts • development and implementation has a clear motivation contained within the NHS Outcomes Framework • established and receptive market or clear evidence of customer demand • implementation requires minimal change to existing business processes • development and implementation will be within an environment of good relationships • committed SRO, actively engaged in the relevant governance activities • committed and experienced development manager is in place

5. Criteria Criteria can be changed easily to accommodate shifts in strategic or political priorities but all active items will need to be reassessed against changed criteria, so a formal change control process needs to be put in place – does not need to be onerous.

6. Standard or Collection ID Scoresheet for criteria relating to Expected Benefits Individual scores Narrative explanation of scoring • Criteria Descriptions: • Helping individuals to choose care types • Helping Individuals to choose providers • … • Helping care providers to have better information • Helping regulators to monitor performance Weighting of criteria could be added but probably not useful Recording whether Statutory/SoS Requirement Total Benefits score

7. Standard or Collection ID Scoresheet for criteria relating to Ease of Delivery Individual scores Narrative explanation of scoring • Criteria Descriptions: • Sufficient budget is available • Appropriately skilled staff are available • … • Significant business change is not required • Commercial/contractual changes not required • Technical aspects are familiar Optional Weighting for criteria that could be added to the tool Total Ease of Delivery score

8. Results of the Assessment • By summing the individual scores for each standard or collection, we end up with two overall scores, one for benefits and one for ease of delivery. Expected Benefits Statutory Req? Ease of Delivery RAG Status SoS Requirement? • We also capture whether an item is a SoS or Statutory requirement and (where available) its RAG status • We use these data to plot the position of the standard or collection on the SCCI Prioritisation Matrix.

9. SCCI Prioritisation Matrix (Basic) You can see at a glance which items are high benefit & easy to deliver (top right), high benefit but difficult (top left), low benefit but easy (bottom right) and low benefit & difficult (bottom left). SCCI 2018 ISB1516 SCCI 2003 SCCI 2007 R00067 ISB1588 SCCI 2002 SCCI2004 ISB1077 EXPECTED BENEFITS ISB0108 SCCI 2005 SCCI2023 ISB0144 SCCI2025 R00316 SCCI 2019 SCCI 0086 SCCI 2016 R00216 R00217 R00013 SCCI2022 EASE OF DELIVERY

10. SCCI Prioritisation Matrix Ambulance EPR, Learning Disabilities Survey, Care Planning, A&E Quality Indicators, Medication Syntax and Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit all score high on the benefit dimension SCCI 2018 ISB1516 This group is identified as being more challenging than the others SCCI 2003 SCCI 2007 R00067 ISB1588 SCCI 2002 SCCI2004 ISB1077 EXPECTED BENEFITS ISB0108 SCCI 2005 SCCI2023 ISB0144 SCCI2025 R00316 SCCI 2019 SCCI 0086 Clinical excellence awards, Annual Census of GP and Pathology Bounded Code List werescore 0 for benefit SCCI 2016 R00216 R00217 R00013 SCCI2022 EASE OF DELIVERY

11. SCCI Prioritisation Matrix (including RAG) SCCI 2018 ISB1516 SCCI 2003 SCCI 2007 R00067 ISB1588 SCCI 2002 SCCI2004 ISB1077 EXPECTED BENEFITS ISB0108 SCCI 2005 SCCI2023 ISB0144 SCCI2025 R00316 SCCI 2019 SCCI 0086 SCCI 2016 R00216 R00217 R00013 SCCI2022 EASE OF DELIVERY

12. SCCI Prioritisation Matrix (including RAG + SoS/Statutory) SoS Requirements SCCI 2018 ISB1516 SCCI 2003 SCCI 2007 R00067 ISB1588 Statutory Requirement SCCI 2002 SCCI2004 ISB1077 EXPECTED BENEFITS ISB0108 SCCI 2005 SCCI2023 ISB0144 SCCI2025 R00316 SCCI 2019 SCCI 0086 SCCI 2016 R00216 R00217 R00013 SCCI2022 EASE OF DELIVERY

13. Some Operational Considerations • The tool needs to be used by people who understand standards and collections, the challenges required to develop and implement them and the business drivers that make them valuable. It cannot be given to administrative staff. • The tool needs to be used within the context of a dialogue with the proponents and potential developers of the standards and collections. All parties need to understand the rationale behind the score and as far as possible to be in agreement about the score. • There is no need to carry out a retrospective assessment of the total portfolio. Assessment should only be necessary for standards or collections that are actively consuming resources. Standards and collections will actively consume resources at the following points: • when a new standard or collection is proposed and under consideration • when a new standard or collection is being developed (including consultation and publication) • when a new standard or collection is being implemented • when an existing standard or collection is undergoing maintenance changes • when an existing standard or collection is being reviewed • when an existing standard or collection is being deprecated or retired

14. What assessors said during testing • The criteria seem relevant and comprehensive and even if the Sponsor/SRO can’t assess all at the start, they are a useful indicator of aspiration. • The criteria fit in with the people, process, technology expectations that SCCI want to see in requirements and the final specification. • The tool is liked - allowing for a similar SME approach to the I2N process with a strong empirical emphasis. • It can be difficult with historical items to ascertain whether criteria are met but that is because we have not asked the questions within the ISB or ROCR processes. • You need to understand the context when assessing, so dialogue between assessors and business owner/proposer/technical teams is essential. • The documents don’t always contain the information necessary to carry out an assessment – interpretation is required, so narrative explanations and dialogue are very important • A reasonably good knowledge of the standard/collection is required to use the tool, which supports the idea that assessors should come from teams such as I2N and Dev Support. • Assessors should work with the idea submitter to reach agreement on scores or clarify disagreements.

15. Questions for SCCI • Is this sort of tool close to what was expected / required? • If not, what needs to change? • If it is broadly right, are the criteria correct? Any additions or amendments? • Is the scoring scale (-1 to 1 at 0.1 increments) too fine-grained or is it OK? • Is the presentation clear and acceptable? Next Steps • Make any required amendments • Agree roles (assessors) • Produce simple guide for assessors and to help communicate to all involved in SCCI process, including submitters of ideas • Connect tool with master schedule and other relevant SCCI tools

16. Plan Approval date of 4th June assumes that prototype is close to what SCCI needs and that SCCI is happy to approve it (subject to requested changes), i.e. does not require resubmission at June 25th SCCI meeting.