Assessment Ratings

The Ratings have not changed, but the way these are determined has changed.

Providers will still be rated as Outstanding; Good; Requires Improvement; or Inadequate. However, during the transition period there will be a mix of old and new, until eventually all Providers have been assessed at a Full Inspection under the new rules.

Comparing and Benchmarking

You can only benchmark ratings when they are like-for-like and use the same core measurement criteria.
Inspections during the roll-out stage are a “holding measure” until a Full Inspection is carried out. During this phased approach you will see KLOE based ratings combined with some elements from the new SAF, resulting in a hybrid rating system.

Provider comparison may not be like-for-like. We have identified 5 types of variations that result in hybrid ratings, which will have little statistical or benchmarking value.

Old ratings which used KLOEs as the criteria

Reliability of Ratings

Benchmarking and comparing Providers is only reliable when each of them have been rated in a full SAF based inspection. Even then, there is likely to a be a level of uncertainty where ratings are based on remote interviews versus an actual site inspection.

Partial Inspection produces a hybrid rating

An example of a Partial Inspection is a telephone review of a Provider who was previously rated as Good under the old system. A single or a small number of Evidence Categories such as Equity of Access are reviewed and scored, and all other un-inspected categories are automatically scored as Good on the basis of the previous inspection under the KLOE criteria, which may now be several years out of date. The statistics will incorrectly imply this being a recent Full Inspection.

Targetted selection are based on the inspector's judgement. This might be routine or based on new information they have received or where they feel additional reviews are necessary