What the policy does—and does not do
The national policy followed the 2024 Scottish SAS pay settlement and was issued in circular PCS(DD)2025/02 on 2 December 2025. It allows a Specialty Doctor or Dentist to ask the employer to assess the current role and evidence against the Specialist generic capabilities and service need.
A doctor who possesses and has been applying Specialist-level skills and experience, where the service requires that level of work.
GMC Specialist Register entry, consultant status, unrestricted scope, or automatic appointment to a different vacancy.
Successful applications submitted before 31 January 2026 could be backdated to 1 August 2025. For current applications, the policy says implementation is from the date the form is submitted to medical workforce.
Prove the gateway with dates and roles
- RegistrationFull GMC or GDC registration and a licence to practise.
- Total experienceAt least 10 years’ work since primary qualification, continuously or in aggregate.
- Relevant specialtyAt least six years in the relevant specialty in a current or closed SAS grade. Equivalent relevant experience in other medical grades, including overseas, is accepted.
- CapabilitiesThe Specialist-grade generic capabilities must be met and evidenced.
Build a month-and-year chronology. Explain part-time periods, breaks, overlapping roles, overseas work and differently titled grades. Eligibility opens the assessment; it does not replace evidence of capability or service need.
Treat service need as evidence, not opinion
Where the job plan already records work wholly or substantially at the clinical responsibility level of a Specialist, the policy treats this as sufficient evidence of service need. Examples may include independent clinics or theatre lists even under a named consultant, as well as generalist or advisory work that demonstrably influences care, pathways or service delivery.
If Specialist-level elements have been carried out beyond the job plan, the policy requires an immediate job-plan review to decide whether the department needs them and to align the plan. Lack of an identified budget is not sufficient grounds to refuse regrading.
Triangulate level, continuity and scope
Annex C permits several forms of evidence, including job plans, logbooks, appraisal history, 360-degree feedback, e-portfolios and references. It expects more than one source. Use concise signposting rather than a portfolio dump.
Values, communication, judgement, safety, equality, reflection and current knowledge.
Defined autonomy, complexity, outcomes, boundaries and proportionate escalation.
Team influence, governance, education, service development and measurable effect.
Recent senior and clinical-manager references that describe what you actually do.
Redact patient identifiers and avoid unnecessary colleague or employer-confidential information. State your own contribution to shared projects. A list of courses or procedures does not, by itself, demonstrate Specialist-level capability.
Six stages from preparation to decision
- 1Prepare
Map eligibility, current scope, generic capabilities and service need against the current form.
- 2Manager meeting
Request a constructive discussion. You may ask a BMA representative or colleague to attend as an observer.
- 3Submit
Send the completed form and supporting material to the medical workforce team. You may submit even if the manager does not support it.
- 4Panel
An independent clinical lead, a clinician with oversight of the team and HR consider the evidence and may request more information.
- 5Outcome
Acceptance leads to regrading from the submission date. Rejection requires detailed in-person and written feedback.
- 6Appeal or develop
Appeal a disputed decision within the policy window, or convert genuine gaps into a supported development plan.
Policy timescales
- If the line manager does not support the request, written criterion-focused reasons should be provided within five working days of the meeting.
- The panel should accept, reject or request further information within 20 working days of medical workforce receiving the application.
- If more information is requested, that period may extend to a maximum of 30 working days.
- Every application should have a confirmed outcome within 35 working days.
- No application should be rejected without the doctor first being invited to a panel discussion.
Read capability and service findings separately
Acceptance leads to regrading and any necessary alignment of the job plan. That review should not delay regrading. If rejected, the doctor must receive detailed feedback in person and then in writing, including reasons and applicable areas for capability development.
Both conditions met
Confirm the submission-based effective date, new contract or variation, pay point, arrears, job plan and payroll implementation in writing.
Interrogate the reason
Separate capability findings from service need, compare each point with the evidence, and secure a supported development or job-plan response where required.
If the applicant does not meet the criteria but Specialist service need is confirmed, the policy describes creation of a Specialist vacancy for open application and an interim job-plan review to align the applicant’s duties with Specialty Doctor level. If neither condition is met, feedback and development support should be provided and duties reviewed. Where further development is needed, the board should put a development plan in place.
Where multiple doctors apply, each case must be considered on its own merits. The presence of another applicant is not itself a reason to rank otherwise qualifying regrading cases as though they were competing for one vacancy.
Use the appeal for a defined dispute
An unsuccessful applicant may appeal in writing to the employing board’s Medical Director within 20 working days of the written outcome, identifying the disputed points. The appeal panel should meet within 20 working days of receiving the request. Written submissions are due one week before the hearing, and the decision should be issued within 15 working days after it.
The appeal panel includes a senior clinical lead, a member nominated by a BMA Local Negotiating Committee from a different health board, and a senior HR representative. Members must have had no previous involvement in the application; conflicts require appropriate independent arrangements.
- Map each appeal ground to the policy, decision wording and evidence already supplied.
- Distinguish a process error, factual error or unreasonable evidence finding from a new development need.
- Use representation where appropriate and observe the submission timetable.
- If upheld, the policy says implementation is backdated to the original medical-workforce submission date.
If the written reason identifies a genuine capability gap, convert it into a specific PDP with opportunity, supervision, evidence and review dates, then reapply when it is demonstrably closed.