Demonstrates: Business planning, contractual oversight (GMS/PMS/APMS), leadership influence, and long-term vision.

Suggested Evidence:

• Practice strategic/business plans
• Annual contractual compliance reports
• GMS/PMS/APMS contract extracts with your annotations or management commentary
• Records of participation in ICB negotiations or contract variations
• Leadership 360 feedback or testimonials
• Risk register and strategic risk mitigation plans
• Partnership meeting minutes or planning workshops
• Transformation project documentation
• Contributions to practice merger, federation, or expansion initiatives

Demonstrates: Financial literacy, income protection, and optimisation of NHS income streams.

Suggested Evidence:

• Annual financial forecast and monthly variance reports
• CQRS and Open Exeter income reconciliation
• PCN DES income tracking tools
• Enhanced Services claims audit logs
• Budget planning templates and cost reduction initiatives
• Cashflow management documentation
• Staff cost benchmarking and payroll analysis
• Evidence of grant funding applications or NHS capital bids

Demonstrates: HR compliance, workforce planning, performance management, and development strategy.

Suggested Evidence:

• Staff induction checklists and onboarding materials
• Mandatory training matrix with compliance statistics
• Appraisal schedules and anonymised feedback summaries
• Disciplinary or grievance process evidence (anonymised)
• Sickness and absence reporting logs
• Organisation chart with reporting structures
• HR policies you authored/updated
• Recruitment campaign documentation
• Wellbeing and retention strategy plans
• Workforce development or CPD tracking

Demonstrates: Effective coordination of PCN activities and management of ARRS workforce.

Suggested Evidence:

• PCN meeting minutes where you acted as PM/representative
• ARRS recruitment plans and workforce rosters
• Induction frameworks for PCN staff
• Role descriptions and supervision arrangements
• PCN service development plans
• PCN DES documentation (e.g. IIF indicators tracking)
• Evidence of workforce reimbursement claims
• Integration strategies between PCN and core practice staff
• Multi-practice collaboration or project documentation

Demonstrates: Regulatory readiness, safeguarding, data protection, and governance infrastructure.

Suggested Evidence:

• Most recent CQC inspection report and evidence of follow-up
• Practice policies (safeguarding, complaints, consent, chaperone, etc.)
• Information governance policies and IG training compliance logs
• DPIAs, privacy notices, and records of processing activity
• Data breach log (anonymised)
• Incident and complaint response logs
• Audit trail of clinical and admin record access
• Safeguarding policy reviews and Level 3 compliance evidence
• CQC audit preparation resources (mock inspections, self-assessment tools)

Demonstrates: Oversight of digital tools (EMIS, SystmOne, Docman, AccuRx) and digital transformation.

Suggested Evidence:

• QOF performance dashboards and data cleaning plans
• EMIS/SystmOne templates and protocols you designed or optimised
• Reports showing clinical coding improvements
• Introduction of online consultation systems (e.g. eConsult, Patchs) with uptake stats
• Workflow automation tools implemented
• Data quality improvement project logs
• Staff digital training logs or how-to guides
• Clinical system audits and SNOMED code improvement projects
• IG Toolkit / DSP Toolkit completion report

Demonstrates: Smooth operational flow from patient contact to clinical review.

Suggested Evidence:

• Workflow mapping diagrams or SOPs
• Staff rota systems with daily coverage plans
• Triage protocols and clinical query allocation matrices
• Pathway redesign evidence (e.g. repeat prescribing, pathology, document handling)
• Missed appointments (DNA) reduction strategies
• Audit findings on workflow bottlenecks
• Workflow escalation policies and duty doctor arrangements
• Staff feedback on operational efficiency changes
• KPis for clinical document turnaround time

Demonstrates: Equity of access, responsiveness, and satisfaction with services.

Suggested Evidence:

• GP Patient Survey results and action plan
• Access audit data (e.g. appointment availability, telephony logs)
• Patient complaints and learning log
• Friends and Family Test (FFT) trends
• Evidence of extended access or digital service expansion
• eConsult response times and closure audits
• Accessibility audits (disability compliance, translation services)
• PPG meeting minutes and engagement work
• Mystery shopper reports or third-party assessments
• Change implementation based on patient feedback

Demonstrates: Oversight of physical environment and safety systems.

Suggested Evidence:

• Fire risk assessments and evacuation plans
• Legionella and infection prevention control logs
• Premises maintenance schedule
• Health and safety training records
• COSHH risk assessments
• Security protocols (e.g. alarm servicing, CCTV)
• Lease or property ownership documentation
• Environmental sustainability initiatives
• Asset register and inventory log
• Evidence of minor improvement grants or premises bids

Demonstrates: Culture of learning, improvement, and evidence-based innovation.

Suggested Evidence:

• Quality improvement project reports and outcomes
• Significant Event Audit logs and learning dissemination
• Clinical and non-clinical audits with action plans
• Meeting minutes showing discussion of outcomes and learning
• Mentorship or coaching provided to junior staff or peers
• Evidence of leadership courses or fellowship participation
• Participation in ICB or NHSE improvement programmes
• CPD portfolio entries reflecting QI activities
• Evidence of embedding a culture of continuous improvement

• Every submitted application for accreditation and registration will be independently reviewed by a panel comprising three trained assessors.
• Each assessor is responsible for conducting a comprehensive review of the applicant's evidence across all ten domains outlined in the accreditation framework.

Applicants are required to submit supporting documentation for each of the ten domains. The submitted evidence must be:

• Relevant to the domain in question
• Clearly aligned to the expected professional standards
• Authentically representative of the applicant’s own work and competencies
• We have provided illustrative examples of the type of evidence that may be deemed suitable for each domain. These examples are provided for reference only and are not exhaustive.
• Applicants are encouraged to submit any evidence they believe is pertinent, even if it falls outside the scope of the examples provided. However, applicants should be aware that assessors will refer to the framework as a baseline, and failure to include key information relevant to a domain may adversely impact the likelihood of achieving the required score in that domain.

• Assessors will use a closed marking scale to evaluate each domain individually. The scores available range from 3 to 7, and reflect the following levels of evidence:
• Mark of 3 – Awarded where there is inadequate, negligible, or missing evidence. A mark of 3 indicates a serious deficiency and will almost certainly result in failure to achieve registration unless balanced by a score of 7 in another domain (a rare occurrence).
• Mark of 4 – Indicates that some evidence has been provided, but it is insufficient to meet the expected standard. The submission may lack depth, relevance, or clarity, and does not convincingly demonstrate that the domain standard has been reached.
• Mark of 5 – The benchmark score, signifying that the applicant has met the expected standard in that domain. This is the minimum acceptable score that contributes positively towards accreditation and registration.
• Mark of 6 – Reflects a strong, high-quality submission where evidence exceeds expectations. This may include comprehensive documentation, exceptional clarity, or demonstration of leadership and innovation within the domain.
• Mark of 7 – Reserved for exemplary submissions, rarely awarded. This score reflects outstanding professional achievement, exceptional evidence, and a level of practice that significantly exceeds national benchmarks. It denotes a submission that stands out even among experienced candidates.

• While the target is to achieve a score of 5 or higher in all ten domains, the marking system allows for limited compensation:
• If a score of 4 is awarded in one domain, this may be offset by achieving a score of 6 in another domain, thereby maintaining an overall average of 5, which is the pass standard.
• If a candidate receives a score of 3 in any domain, this would necessitate achieving a score of 7 in another domain to preserve an average score of 5. Given the rarity of scores of 7, a score of 3 is generally considered high-risk and likely to result in a failed application.