Process for independent evaluation of progress on Government commitments

Annex: draft “anchor statements”

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