Background
Applicants who are unsuccessful in obtaining qualified teacher status (QTS) can request a decision review. Previously, this process was managed outside the service using Zendesk, Excel and Word. Applicants submitted requests through Zendesk, reviews were tracked on a spreadsheet, responses were drafted manually, and key updates were then recorded in the case management system (CMS). Where required, existing CMS functionality was used to reverse decisions.
As part of our aim to bring operational processes into the service and improve efficiency, decision reviews were identified as a feature for development. The existing approach relied on significant manual administration.
Moving the process into the service would enable us to support the entire journey, from reviewing the request through to correspondence, within a single workflow. It also could allow us to enforce the existing policy that applicants have 28 calendar days to request a decision review, preventing invalid requests from being submitted outside of this window and reducing unnecessary operational effort.
How we approached it
We worked closely with professional recognition (PR) colleagues to understand their existing process and identify the key requirements needed to support decision reviews within the service.
Although the feature was developed without a designer, we used GOV.UK Design System principles to guide our decisions and ensure the experience remained focused on user needs.
For applicants, our priority was clarity and simplicity. We wanted to make it easy to understand, we also wanted users to clearly understand the review process and what would happen after submission. The feature included:
a free-text field allowing applicants to explain why they were requesting a review the ability to upload supporting evidence and translated documents a clear confirmation page outlining the next steps We chose a free-text approach because review requests can vary significantly, and allowing applicants to explain their circumstances in their own words helped us capture the information needed without imposing unnecessary constraints.
For PR colleagues, we focused on presenting information clearly within the CMS and supporting the full range of review outcomes. We also considered operational scenarios, such as requests submitted without supporting evidence, to ensure the workflow remained effective.
Outcomes and next steps
Following the release of the feature, we conducted a one-month review to assess how effectively it met user and operational needs.
The review identified several opportunities for improvement, including enhanced filtering and case management functionality, such as filtering reviews by the date they were raised.
The feature has also reduced manual processing by removing the need to manage requests through spreadsheets and create individual templated responses outside the service. Feedback from our key operational users has been positive, with colleagues reporting that the new process is quicker to manage and enables them to process more reviews efficiently.
One concern during development was that making the process easier to access could lead to an increase in decision review requests. To date, this has not materialised. Applicants are still required to sign into the service to submit a review, ensuring appropriate access controls remain in place while providing a more streamlined experience.