Rating |
Was the commitment met overall/Is the commitment on track to be met? |
Was the commitment effectively funded? |
Did the commitment achieve a positive impact for patients? |
Was it an appropriate commitment? |
Outstanding |
The commitment was fully met/there is a high degree of confidence that the commitment will be met |
The commitment was fully funded with no shortfall |
Patients and stakeholders agree that the impact was positive |
Evidence confirms appropriateness of the commitment |
Good |
The commitment was met but there were some minor gaps, or is likely to be met within a short time after the deadline date/it is likely that the commitment will be met, but some outstanding issues will need to be addressed to ensure that is the case |
The commitment was effectively funded, with minor shortfalls |
The majority of patients and stakeholders agree that the impact was positive |
Evidence suggests the commitment was appropriate overall, with some caveats |
Requires improvement |
The commitment has not been met and substantive additional steps will need to be taken to ensure that it is met within a reasonable time/the commitment will only be met if substantive additional steps are taken |
The commitment was ineffectively funded |
A minority of patients and stakeholders agree that the impact was positive |
Evidence suggests the commitment needs to be modified |
Inadequate |
The commitment has not been met and very significant additional steps will need to be taken to ensure that it is met within a reasonable time/the commitment will only be met if very significant additional steps are taken |
Significant funding shortfalls prevented the commitment being met |
Most patients and stakeholders did not agree there was a positive impact for patients |
Evidence suggests the commitment was not appropriate |
Published: 5 August 2020