Requirements - Solution Design & Methods
-
SD07 - Equal Treatment
We should treat internal (NHS England) and external consumers equally.
Requirement description
This requirement is focused on interoperability, fairness of access, and API/product design consistency. Internal NHS England consumers should not receive preferential treatment compared to external consumers unless there is a documented and justified reason.
In simple terms:
Design services, APIs and capabilities so that internal and external consumers can access and use them through the same standards, interfaces, processes and governance arrangements wherever practical.
Scoring rubric – Equal Treatment of Consumers
| Score | What it looks like | Typical evidence | Key gaps / risks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | No evidence of equal treatment. Internal consumers are provided with capabilities or access methods that external consumers cannot reasonably access. | No documented API strategy, no consumer analysis, no published interfaces or standards. | Significant interoperability risk, duplicated integrations, vendor lock-in, inconsistent consumer experience. |
| 1 | Limited awareness of the requirement. Some discussion exists but solutions are designed primarily around internal users. | Informal design discussions, unsupported assumptions, isolated examples of reuse. | High-risk gaps. Internal and external access models differ without documented rationale. |
| 2 | Some interfaces and standards are shared across consumer groups but significant exceptions exist. | API specifications, interface documentation, partial consumer analysis, incomplete standards adoption. | Notable inconsistencies. Different onboarding approaches, authentication models, documentation quality or support arrangements. |
| 3 | Much of the solution follows a common consumer model. Most interfaces are available on a consistent basis to internal and external consumers. | Documented API strategy, consumer personas, architecture diagrams, onboarding processes, design rationale for known exceptions. | Some notable gaps remain. Certain services, data sets or capabilities continue to favour one consumer group and require mitigation. |
| 4 | Most consumer interactions follow common patterns, standards and governance. Any differences are documented, reviewed and justified. | Maintained API catalogue, common onboarding process, documented standards, governance approvals, stakeholder feedback showing consistent treatment. | Minor gaps only. Remaining exceptions present low risk and have agreed remediation or justification. |
| 5 | Comprehensive and exemplar implementation. The solution is demonstrably designed consumer-first, with internal and external consumers using the same patterns, interfaces and lifecycle processes wherever possible. | Published standards, reusable API patterns, consumer engagement evidence, service metrics, architecture reviews, governance records, continuous improvement activities, documented exception management. | Minimal or no significant gaps identified. |
What assessors should look for
- Consistent access model – Internal and external consumers use the same or equivalent interfaces, APIs and integration patterns where practical.
- Consumer-centred design – Consumer needs are considered regardless of organisational boundary.
- Standards and governance – Common onboarding, documentation, security, support and lifecycle processes exist.
- Justified exceptions – Any differences are documented with clear rationale and risk assessment.
- Evidence of active use – The approach is being applied in delivery decisions and is not simply documented.
What separates a 3 from a 4 or 5
A score of 3 normally demonstrates that the principle is understood and mostly implemented, but exceptions remain and are not always governed consistently.
A score of 4 requires evidence that exceptions are consciously managed, reviewed and justified through governance.
A score of 5 requires demonstrable exemplar practice, including common standards, measurable adoption, consumer engagement, maintained documentation and evidence that equal treatment of consumers influences architecture and delivery decisions.
Updated: 04 September 2026 (SAF Version 1.1)