- Who runs it
- NHS England
- Can it affect people?
- Yes. It may support a decision about a person, such as access to a service, place, payment, or permit.
- Possible rights impact: Direct decision or access
How much do we know?
A source is a published page or document behind a claim. The label measures what is documented, not whether a system is good or safe. Missing information does not prove that a safeguard is missing.
Sources and further reading
- NHS England: NHS.UK Reviews Automoderation Tool / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records / 2024-07-23
- GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records - official inventory / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records
optional detailFull record and details
The interface and explanatory guides are translated. Record names, record descriptions, quotations, detailed editorial notes, and linked public documents stay in their published language so evidence is not silently changed.
What it does
The NHS.UK website receives thousands of reviews each year about NHS services. This tool automates a previously manual process by using natural language processing (NLP) techniques to improve efficiency, scalability, and user satisfaction.
If this affects someone
This tool is specifically designed to automate the moderation of NHS.UK reviews in line with the existing moderation policy, which includes nine distinct rules that were each handled individually. To detect rule violations, a rule-based approach is employed for some rules, while machine learning (ML) models have been trained for others. Certain rule-based solutions could potentially be used in other contexts, such as identifying emails or detecting profanity. However, others are tailored to the specific definiti...
For moderation rules that allow users to disagree with the algorithm's decision, they can send the review to a human moderator for review. The user will then receive an email stating that their review has been published or explaining how to change it to meet the review policy. If a review breaks policy but does not get caught by the moderation rules, service providers can report the comment directly to a human mod...
The datasets captured the review title and comment along with the care provider details such as organisation type and name. All comments had labels indicating which (if any) moderation rules had been broken, assigned either by human labelling, augmentation or generation.
Sources and further reading
First indexed from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records on 2026-09-03. Only usable fields from the public record are shown; missing answers remain blank.
Fields were mapped from the linked public record by deterministic code. No generative model wrote this text.
Facts to check
- Who runs it
- NHS England
- Life area
- Public sector
- Proof level
- Source-backed
- Footnotes
- 2
- updated
- 2 years ago
The score orders work, not people.
Review priority rises for rights-sensitive uses, missing sources, unanswered accountability fields, and old evidence. Strong official documentation lowers it. The score is not a verdict on safety, fairness, or legality.
A missing field means the attached public sources did not answer it. Coverage is uneven, publication does not prove performance, and a certificate has a defined boundary.
Previous versions
- Imported14 days agoSubstantialImported from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records.
Help check this record.
Add a public source, challenge a claim, or point out a missing way to reach a person.
A submitted name, email, description, source, or correction is used only to verify the record and prevent abuse. It is not published automatically.