APCAT key terms

The combination of knowledge, skills, and judgment a person actually demonstrates when carrying out a task to the expected standard in a real setting.

The boundaries of what a professional is trained, authorized, and permitted to do within their role, including limits that require referral to someone else.

The reasoned decision a practitioner makes by weighing evidence, standards, context, and competing interests when no single rule gives a clear answer.

Making decisions by combining the best available research, documented data, professional experience, and the needs of the people affected.

A structured process for identifying the gaps between what a situation requires and what currently exists, so that effort is directed where it is most needed.

A comparison of current performance or conditions against a required or desired state, producing a list of specific differences to be closed.

Measurements taken before any change is introduced, used later to show whether results have actually improved.

The process of identifying what could go wrong, estimating how likely and how serious each outcome is, and deciding which risks need action first.

The condition of records being accurate, complete, consistent, and unaltered except through documented and authorized changes.

Goals written to be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound, so progress can be tracked and success can be judged objectively.

A hierarchical split of a project into smaller deliverable pieces, making it possible to assign ownership, estimate effort, and track completion.

The deliberate assignment of people, money, time, equipment, and materials to planned activities, based on priorities and available capacity.

Actions taken to reduce the likelihood or impact of an identified risk, such as removing a hazard, adding controls, or sharing the exposure.

A prepared set of steps to follow if a known risk materializes or a plan fails, written in advance so the response is fast and coordinated.

A document that sets out who will do what, when, and with which resources, so an approved design can be carried out consistently.

Trying a change on a small scale before full rollout, to expose problems, test assumptions, and adjust the approach at low cost.

The structured work of preparing people for a change, addressing resistance, and embedding new ways of working so gains persist.

Strengthening the skills, systems, and resources of people and organizations so they can sustain improved performance without outside support.

An agreed, documented requirement that describes the minimum acceptable level of quality, safety, or performance for a process or output.

Meeting the legal rules, licence conditions, and mandatory requirements that apply to an organization's activities, and being able to prove it.

A ranked order of ways to reduce harm, from removing the hazard entirely through engineering and administrative measures down to protective equipment as a last resort.

The formal recording of an event that harmed, or could have harmed, people or property, so causes can be examined and prevented.

Planned checks and activities that confirm work meets defined standards before results are released or accepted.

A published set of principles and expected behaviors that guides professional decisions and signals what the public can expect from practitioners.

Agreeing to take part after receiving clear information about purpose, risks, benefits, and alternatives, without pressure and with the freedom to withdraw.

The duty to protect private information from unauthorized access or disclosure, sharing it only as needed and permitted.

A situation where personal, financial, or other interests could improperly influence professional decisions or appear to do so.

Reporting suspected wrongdoing, danger, or illegal conduct through proper channels, often with legal protection against retaliation.

Identifying the people and groups affected by or able to influence a piece of work, and mapping their interests, influence, and likely response.

Ongoing, two-way interaction with affected parties to understand their views, involve them in decisions, and maintain trust.

A schedule defining what information will be shared, with whom, in what format, by whom, and how often.

A repeating cycle in which results and reactions are collected and fed back into decisions, so the work adjusts as it proceeds.

A small number of measures chosen because they show clearly whether important outcomes and processes are on track.

Review carried out while work is still in progress, aimed at improving it rather than judging final success.

An assessment at the end of a piece of work that judges whether the intended outcomes were achieved and what overall value resulted.

A structured investigation that traces a problem back to the underlying conditions that allowed it, rather than stopping at the person or event closest to it.

A specific change made to remove the cause of a detected problem and prevent it from recurring, with follow-up to confirm it worked.

An ongoing effort to make small, evidence-based gains in quality and efficiency rather than waiting for a single large fix.