Excellence in Professional Education Programmes

Sponsored by

Back to full list

This category recognises excellence in the delivery of professional education initiatives that are designed to measurably raise standards of real-world clinical practice in the longer term. For example by:

  • Delivering information and resolution for clearly identified unmet needs/clinical issues amongst HCPs
  • Challenging and improving existing standards of care
  • Providing information, education and support for specific therapy areas
  • Improving the quality of information about treatment or services.
  • Evidence must be provided to show how the initiative developed or enhanced partnership with key clinical groups or associations.

Eligible initiatives should:

  • Identify and address specific educational needs within the HCP community
  • Have had a positive, measurable impact on professional practice as a result of changes in perception and/or behaviour, or improvements in the quality of information
  • Explain how, if relevant, programmes focused on a small group of experts have gone on to have a much broader clinical impact
  • Measurably raise standards of clinical practice and patient care.

Implementation – 15 marks (400 words)

  • Please describe how you implemented the project or programme
  • Please briefly outline why these specific tactics were selected
  • For a programme this should include describing what tactics were deployed to implement the strategy
  • For a meeting or stand-alone event this should describe how the meeting or event was delivered
  • Highlight any innovative elements that were included as part of the programme implementation.

Judges’ top tips

  • The judges need to know what you did or developed to judge this section – please keep descriptions clear and succinct
  • When awarding marks in this section the judges will reward:
    • a logical selection of tactical projects or outputs
    • creativity and innovation in the way you execute the tactics
    • clever selection and maximisation of channels
    • appropriate integration of tactics for enhanced impact
    • scientific acumen and robustness
    • the use of insights in finding creative ways to engage the defined audiences.

JUDGING CRITERIA AND ENTRY FORMAT

Executive Summary – 200 words. 0 (zero) marks

This will be used if your entry is selected as a finalist. Please state clearly why this event is award-worthy – what is unique, differentiating and innovative about it.

Main entry

Budget Band* Information, as below:

Band A under £10,000

Band B £10,001-£25,000

Band C £25,001-£50,000

Band D £50,001-£100,000

Band E £100,001-£200,000

Band F over £200,001.

*fee value of time spent

If your client has declined to allow this, you must state this within your submission.

  • Failure to provide the budget band seriously impacts the judge’s ability to assess the entry against other entries and may result in the entry being disqualified
  • The budget band provides important context for judging the innovation, delivery and impact of a piece of work.
  • Impressive work is not always dependent on budget size, so there is no right or wrong budget.

Situation Analysis, needs assessment and desired impact – 15 marks (300 words)

  • In this section you should show the judges how well you understood the situation at the start of the project, establishing a clear need for the initiative and the overall impact you intended to make
  • Use this section/analysis to clearly lay out benchmark data that you will refer to in your measurement of effectiveness later
  • Show the judges the best information, data and insights you have about uptake of health interventions, current practice, defining/segmenting audiences, identifying educational or information needs, which channels will best reach the audience, competitive environment, creative landscape etc before the start of your work.

Judges’ top tip

  • We work and operate in a world where there is a wealth of data and insights, so there is no excuse for projects and programmes that are planned without this data. The judges will reward the strength, robustness and variety of data and insights used to help to shape a holistic view of the situation and audiences.

Objectives – 15 marks (250 words)

Describe the objectives for the project or programme including outputs (i.e., what materials/platforms are produced), out-takes (i.e., post-event evaluation, surveys showing changes in knowledge/understanding, social media/website engagement, sharing and commenting), and outcomes (i.e., changes in patient behaviour or outcomes, clinical practice or health policy versus the benchmark stated in the situation analysis) and specifically how these will be measured

Strategy – 15 marks (250 words)

  • Please outline the rationale behind the specific approach undertaken
  • Refer to the data and insight in the situation analysis section
  • Share any strategic considerations that were given to ensure optimal inclusivity, representation and sustainability in this initiative
  • Explain why this was the right strategy and any points to emphasise bold or innovative strategy selection.

Judges’ top tips

The judges will:

  • Reward clarity of thought around strategies and how they are communicated – bullet points may be better than long prose
  • Assess how well the chosen strategy/ strategies might achieve objectives
  • Reward entries showing a clever or insightful way that you interpreted the data and insights from the situation analysis to set your strategy
  • Reward innovation in strategy
  • Recognise how different communications disciplines are blended as part of the strategic approach.

Implementation – 15 marks (400 words)

Please refer to the specific category for a description of what the judges are looking for.

Effectiveness Part One: Outputs and Outtakes vs Objectives – 10 marks (200 words)

  • To help the judges assess the strength of the evaluation, please describe how successful the project or programme was in terms of outputs and outtakes achieved versus the relevant measurements set in the Objectives section
  • You may include comments from third-party stakeholders in this section but ONLY if they clearly help to demonstrate the impact of the work and were a pre-planned part of your measurement approach

Effectiveness Part Two: Outcomes vs Objectives – 10 marks (200 words)

  • To help the judges assess the strength of the evaluation, please describe how successful the project or programme was in terms of the outcomes achieved versus the relevant measurements set in the Objectives section
  • You may include comments from third-party stakeholders in this section but ONLY if they clearly help to demonstrate the impact of the work and were a pre-planned part of your measurement approach.

Supporting Materials

Please only send information that helps the judges to see how you researched, planned, implemented and measured the programme within each specific category, e.g.:

  • Information illustrating how the strategy was brought to life is helpful but we don’t need a copy of every item
  • Information supporting the evaluation and measurement is the most relevant
  • ESSENTIAL: a summary sheet must be supplied detailing each piece of supporting material and clearly identifying where evidence can be found to support claims in the entry
  • PLUS: An approved visual image or video that supports the entry for use in print, results pages online and in the AV.

Don’t forget:

Please disclose if any other companies and/or organisations were involved in delivering this submission (research, creative, logistics, production, etc.). This will be a requirement when you submit your entry.

Timeframe eligibility

Work conducted during the two-year period between January 2023 and December 2024 will be eligible for submission. If the project, programme, or event was previously entered into the Communiqué Awards programme, any new entries must provide benchmark data to clearly demonstrate how effectiveness was evaluated and how it has developed over time between the two submissions. Submissions that fail to disclose this will be excluded from the judging process.