Feasibility Assessment

#Ask whether the work can be delivered

Feasibility concerns whether an approach can be put into practice under specified conditions. It is different from proving that the approach improves health outcomes or is worth its cost. Start by defining the activity, setting and boundaries so that a positive assessment is not mistaken for broader approval.

Examine staffing, available time, training needs, physical space and support arrangements. Consider whether the proposed work relies on temporary effort that would be difficult to maintain. Include the burden on patients and carers as well as staff, particularly where participation requires extra appointments, equipment or digital skills.

#Test technical and information assumptions

Check whether the necessary systems, connections and data are actually available for the intended purpose. Data existing somewhere does not mean they are accessible, suitable or authorised for use. Clarify requirements for integration, identity matching, data quality and support when connections fail or information arrives late.

Identify dependencies that the team cannot control directly, such as another organisation's approval or a supplier's technical change. Where possible, investigate uncertain assumptions through limited, appropriately governed tests. Record what those tests demonstrate and what they do not, especially if test conditions differ from the intended working environment.

#Consider ethics and decision thresholds

An activity can be technically possible yet ethically unacceptable or operationally unsafe. Consider privacy, fairness, accessibility, participant burden and the consequences of errors. Determine which governance reviews and permissions apply locally. Feasibility work itself may require safeguards; describing an activity as an early test does not remove those responsibilities.

Summarise each major constraint, its owner and the evidence needed to resolve it. Define conditions for proceeding, changing scope or stopping. Avoid a simple yes-or-no conclusion when feasibility depends on unresolved resources or approvals. A conditional finding is useful only when its conditions are visible, realistic and checked before the next stage.

#Common misunderstandings

A feasibility assessment is not a promise that proposed work will succeed. It identifies whether delivery looks realistic, what remains uncertain and which conditions must be met before proceeding. A technically possible approach may still be impractical if staff lack time, information is incomplete or ongoing support cannot be maintained.

Feasibility is also different from clinical effectiveness. Showing that a service or tool can operate does not establish that it improves health outcomes. That requires appropriate evidence. Likewise, a successful small pilot does not automatically demonstrate readiness for wider use: workloads, patient needs and available resources may differ across settings.

Another misunderstanding is that assessment happens only at the start. Changes in staffing, costs, systems or clinical practice can alter what is achievable. Revisiting the assessment helps teams recognise when to adapt, pause or stop. A responsible conclusion may be “not yet”, rather than a simple yes or no.

#Questions worth asking a clinician

• What staffing, equipment, funding and time are required, and have you confirmed they are available without disrupting routine care?
• Which ethics approvals, patient consent processes and data access permissions must be in place before this work can begin?
• Which technical dependencies, such as system compatibility or secure data transfer, remain untested, and how will you verify them?
• What minimum conditions must be met to proceed, and what safety concerns or operational failures would trigger a pause or stop?
• How will you distinguish evidence that this work is feasible from evidence that it improves clinical outcomes or offers value?