Eligibility & Criteria – Pen CS Awards

Eligibility

All nominees must meet the following eligibility criteria:

Awards are open to Aboriginal Member Services or General Practices with a current accreditation that meets the minimum Standards, as outlined by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP). These accreditations are gained through the accreditation agencies outlined by the RACGP here. Nominees must have an active software licence with PenCS such as CAT or Topbar.
An authorised representative from either a Primary Health Network, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, Research Organisation, Aboriginal Medical Service or General Practice may submit a nomination. Self-nominations are encouraged and accepted.

All nominations require:

current contact details of the nominator;
current contact details of the nominee; and
responses to all nomination questions.

Pen CS may contact the nominator to request details of a referee that can verify any statements made in the nomination question responses.
Please see the Terms and Conditions, for more details. Good luck!

Judging Criteria

Criteria		Participation	Functional	Intermediate	Advanced	Excellent
Identified Problem	20%	The problem is not clearly stated or is irrelevant to quality improvement.	The problem is stated but lacks a comprehensive understanding of quality improvement measures.	The problem is defined and addresses quality improvement measures.	The problem is well-defined with statistics and/or metrics to support, and clearly addresses quality improvement measures.	The problem is clearly defined with statistics and/or metrics to support, and clearly addresses quality improvement measures.
Outcomes	20%	Outcomes are not clearly defined, or are not measurable.	Outcomes are defined but lack specificity or do not align with quality improvement measures.	Outcomes are defined and may be measured against.	Outcomes are well-defined, measurable and align with quality improvement measures. Metrics included to support outcomes.	Outcomes are well-defined, measurable and align with quality improvement measures, with the process on how outcomes were achieved clearly outlined. Metrics are included to support outcomes.
CAT/Topbar Use	20%	CAT/Topbar is not used	CAT/Topbar is mentioned, however does not explain use of tools.	CAT/Topbar is used.	CAT/Topbar is effectively used and clearly demonstrates workflow efficiency in the practice/ service.	CAT/Topbar is clearly used by whole practice team and clearly demonstrates workflow efficiency in the practice / service.
Multidisciplinary Team Care	20%	The team is not collaborative, lacks diversity or expertise, or is not working together effectively.	The team are mentioned, however how the team work together, their diversity or expertise, is not elaborated on.	The team is collaborative and works together, however their diversity or expertise could be further elaborated on.	The team is collaborative, diverse in expertise and backgrounds, and works together effectively.	The team is highly collaborative in terms of including relevant members within and external to the practice, diverse in expertise and backgrounds, and works together effectively.
Demonstration of Positive Impact in Local Community	20%	The program has not had any impact on the local community.	The program has had some impact on the local community, but it is not significant.	The program has had good impact on the local community, but it is not significant.	The program has had a demonstrated positive impact on the local community and is well-received.	The program has had a positive impact on the local community and is well-received. Testimonials, statistics or other relevant support materials are provided.

Eligibility

Judging Criteria

Menu

Quick Links

Follow Us