ArticleBMJ open2026
National Health Service consultants' experiences and views of performance pay in England: a qualitative interview study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore National Health Service (NHS) consultants' experiences and views of the local Clinical Excellence Award (CEA) scheme following changes to performance-related pay in England.
designThis was a qualitative study.
settingThis study was set in one NHS Trust in England.
participants20 NHS consultants took part in the study. Out of these, seven had successfully applied for performance pay and 13 had not applied for performance pay in 2023 (one of these had applied unsuccessfully in a previous year). The majority of participants were male (n=11) and of White British ethnicity (n=12), and the majority had been qualified as a consultant for 10 or more years.
methodsInterviews were conducted online, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using both inductive and deductive coding. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached. The reporting of this qualitative study was guided by the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) 32-item checklist.
resultsFive key themes were identified: (1) motivations for engagement with the scheme, (2) experience of the application process, (3) perceptions of fairness and equity and (4) influence of organisational and contextual factors. Participants described challenges with defining 'excellence', time pressures and discomfort with self-promotion. While the revised CEA structure was generally welcomed, concerns remained about inequities, the separation of research from clinical work and cultural barriers to sustainable service development.
conclusionsConsultants' engagement with performance-related pay is shaped by personal, organisational and systemic factors. Although awards were valued as recognition and professional validation, performance pay was perceived to function more as symbolic recognition than as a motivator of performance. Findings highlight the need for transparent, equitable and team-oriented approaches to consultant recognition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.