Distinguished Service Awards recognise CSP members and CSP staff who have contributed outstanding service or delivered service excellence for the benefit of CSP members over at least a 10-year period of continuous CSP membership.
Distinguished Service Awards are awarded by CSP Council on the recommendation of the Professional Awards Panel in accordance with the Royal Charter, by-laws and regulations.
Submissions, by nomination or self-nomination, are reviewed by the Professional Awards Panel and judged against a scoring matrix.
Nominations are via an online form. There is no financial award. Award winners receive a CSP lozenge badge with a Distinguished Service Award filial and a Distinguished Service Award certificate.
Nomination Questions
- The nomination form takes around 15 minutes to complete, plus additional time to prepare information for the Award Criteria questions (numbers 25-27).
- Questions 1 to 12 – contact details for the nominee and tick box integrity check questions.
- Questions 13 to 16 – contact details for principal referee 1.
- Questions 17 to 19 – contact details for referee 2.
- Questions 20 to 22 – contact details for referee 3.
- Question 23 – data processing agreement.
- Question 24 – DSA submission category tick box
- Question 25 – short headline summary of this nomination. Max 500 words.
- Question 26 – statement of the nominee's evidence of outstanding service to CSP and/or its members. Max 1,000 words.
- Question 27 –statement of the nominee's evidence of excellence within their field. Max 1,000 words.A
Submission guidance
- Read the guidance first to understand what you need to submit.
- The candidate and the three nominators/referees must all be current subscribing CSP members
- Submit online
What makes a strong submission?
- Read the guidance first. Understand what you need to submit.
- Clear, evidence-based statements of impact.
- Focus on quality over quantity – avoid long narratives.
- Use of measurable outcomes to demonstrate influence. Address the 'so what..?' factor.
What makes a poor submission?
Avoid the following:
- Excessive hyperbole. Over-claiming achievements ('the best in the world', 'unprecedented success') may erode credibility.
- Adjective overload. Using too many qualifiers instead of concrete evidence ('brilliant, innovative, amazing') is unconvincing.
- Subjective praise: Opinions or self-congratulation ('we believe we’re exceptional') detract from evidence-based statements.
- Emotive or sentimental language. This appeals to feelings rather than fact ('we were disappointed but persevered') and may distract from factual evidence based merit that our awards require.
- Lack of specificity. Vague claims without data, metrics, or clear examples may frustrate the panel as they cannot link the submission to the scoring framework.
- Buzzword soup. Relying on healthcare clichés ('synergy', 'disruption', 'game-changing') signals a lack of substance. Avoid acronyms and abbreviations in relation to the candidate's work and/or organisation that may not be understood, unless you spell them out in full the first time they are used.
- Narrative sprawl. Long, meandering storytelling without clear structure or focus wastes the panel’s time. The word count dictates that the submission gets to the point and clearly articulates the merit of the submission.
- Ignoring the scoring criteria. Failing to directly address what the award asks for, and/or padding with unrelated information signals poor understanding of how to create a good submission and lack of attention to detail.
- Repitition. Repeating the same information within different sections of the submission may indicate a lack of substance or understanding of the candidate's achievements.
How is a submission scored?
- The panel considers submissions using an objective scoring matrix.
- Only submissions scoring 3/6 or higher are awarded a Distinguished Service Award.
- Unsuccessful submissions are provided with clear feedback identifying the gaps in the submission.