The 2024/25 Core Surgical Training CT1 and Improving Surgical Training ST1 National Selection portfolio scoring process is described in detail below.
Important:
Important
The information on these pages is related to the 2024/25 recruitment process.
Important:
Accuracy
Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained on this page. The information presented is accurate at the time of publication.
Please ensure that you have read the following document carefully in full prior to submitting your application as there are changes from previous years.
This document should be read in conjunction with the Supplementary Applicant Handbook.
In a change to previous years, portfolio assessment will be incorporated into the interview.
Please see the below section on ‘Scoring Process’ for further information.
Please note that the same criteria are used for both the portfolio submission on Oriel and for the portfolio interview process.
Summary of changes for 2024/25 recruitment
There are several changes to recruitment to CST in 2024/25, and two anticipated changes to 2025/26 which we are informing candidates about in advance.
Portfolio station
Following the successful use of a multi-station format during the interviews for Core Surgical Training for 2023/24, we will continue to use this format for the 2024/25 selection process and have expanded it to include a portfolio station.
Candidates will no longer be asked to complete self-assessment on Oriel.
Instead, candidates invited to interview will be requested to upload an index page with the appropriate indicators for each domain.
Candidates will assign a letter from A to E to each domain showing which category of evidence they think their evidence sits in (A being the top, E being the bottom).
The portfolio has moved to this structure as the category acts as a guide for the assessor and is not the final score allocated - this is determined during the interview.
As we are no longer using a verification process, we do not need to allocate a score before interview as it may potentially mislead candidates as to what they will score on this station. As in previous years, candidates will continue to upload evidence on the portal.
During their interview, candidate's portfolio will be assessed by the interviewers during a 10 minute waiting period (similar to the process pre-pandemic). After this, there will be a 10 minute virtual interview about the portfolio, candidates will have 5 minutes for each question and will be asked about 2 of their portfolio domains.
Surgical Experience – Conferences
This component of the portfolio has been removed as per MDRS guidance.
Training Experience
Candidates must now demonstrate that they have delivered 4 sessions of the teaching to score the top tier of points.
Training Qualifications
As per previous changes (removal of courses and postgraduate degrees) this domain (which required essentially the same components except aimed at teaching) has been removed in line with MDRS guidance.
Summary of changes for 2025/26 recruitment
ITU as a specialty
ITU will no longer be considered a surgical specialty for the purposes of the portfolio.
Foundation placements as surgical experience
We will no longer accept foundation placements as an example of surgical experience.
This was only introduced during the pandemic to mitigate that many candidates could not undertake undergraduate electives or taster weeks.
Now that we have progressed far enough from that time-frame, we will return to only scoring points for elective or taster placements.
General information
All times given are United Kingdom.
This document will provide details of the domains, indicators of achievements and the descriptors and mandatory evidence required to be submitted to award points in each domain.
- Candidates will have their portfolio assessed during the online interview and then be asked questions on two of the domains chosen by the assessors, this is a major change from the last few years, so please read this document carefully
- At time of application, all candidates will be required to complete a index page (example in appendix) outlining their achievements in various domains. This is mandatory and candidates will be unable to submit their application without completing this. The score acts as a guide for assessors during the portfolio station – it outlines what the candidate thinks they have achieved, and what category of evidence they have uploaded in each domain. Assessors will review the evidence, then ask candidates some questions about their portfolio and then allocate a final score
- Please ensure that you answer each domain honestly and to the best of your knowledge. You must ensure that all questions answered within the summary form are accurate at the time of submission
- Any evidence submissions without an index sheet will be scored 0 on the domains and evidence will not be reviewed
- The portfolio evidence portal will open (time and dates to be confirmed). All evidence must be uploaded prior to the closing deadline. If you have problems with uploading evidence, you must inform the National Recruitment Office team before 5pm on the 19 February
- Evidence for your portfolio can only be accepted via the dedicated upload portal. Evidence provided to the National Recruitment Office by any other means will not be accepted
Guidance for permissable evidence / achievements
When determining which indicator to select in each domain you should not select an answer based on something that you have not achieved yet.
All achievements should be completed by close of applications.
Any achievements claimed must have been undertaken after commencing your medical or first undergraduate degree - (achievements completed from school or before university are excluded).
- A specific achievement can be used to select one indicator in one domain only. Please ensure that the achievement used is applied to the domain where the highest indicator that can be awarded. Assessors will only assess and ask questions on the first item of evidence uploaded, as they will assume that this is the evidence most likely to score points for a candidate
- If you have more than one achievement within a single domain then you should select the one which would give you the highest indicator, and this should be the only achievement you upload
- Please note that it is the candidate’s sole discretion as to which response they select on the index page. Under no circumstances will the National Recruitment Office administrative team will not be able to advise which option to choose
Scoring Process
- All shortlisted applicants will proceed to the interview stage of the recruitment process
- In a change to previous years, the portfolio assessment will be incorporated into the interview as a separate station. Assessors will have a 10 minute window to review evidence uploaded and then the candidate will join them and be asked questions about two of their achievements for 10 minutes. The choice of achievements to ask questions about will be made by the assessors at the time of evidence review. Applicants portfolio score will be based on the assessor’s portfolio score and the answers given to the questions
- If assessors feel that there is sufficient/complete evidence for each domain they will award an appropriate score and they will award a separate score for the questions asked at interview. Candidates will only be asked questions about two of their domains
- Any instance of candidates trying to gain an unfair advantage by over-claiming and/or exaggerating their achievements will be taken extremely seriously. This may be tested in the questions that a candidate is asked. This could lead to an application either being marked down, removed from the recruitment process, or, in more serious cases, could be reported as a probity matter to the GMC
Please bear in mind the GMC's Good Medical Practice guidelines on probity including: "You must always be honest about your experience, qualifications and position, particularly when applying for posts." (GMC Good Practice).
Patient Identifiable Data (PID)
- No uploaded evidence should identify patients. This includes, for example, thank-you cards/letters from patients’ families. Hospital numbers are also an example of patient identifiable data. There is no requirement to upload any evidence with potential patient identifiable data
- Instances where patient identifiable data is found in an applicant’s evidence will result in a score of zero being awarded and the candidate may be reported to the GMC and further action may be taken. If patient identifiable data is uploaded, the score cannot be granted
- For more information on PID, please refer to the GMC’s confidentiality guidance pages
- Other examples of inappropriate evidence would include identifiable minutes from a departmental meeting (for example used to demonstrate a local meeting) - these should be properly redacted
Appropriate Evidence Submission
- Assessors will have a 10 minute window to assess an applicant’s portfolio, therefore if an applicant has not followed the guidance in this document, it will be very difficult to assess. If too many items are uploaded, assessors will only assess the first item of evidence for each domain. Candidates will be informed of this during their interview
- For each domain, candidates should only submit a maximum of one item from each box to evidence an achievement
Domain |
Item 1 |
Item 2 |
Item 3 |
Surgical Experience |
Verified elogbook consolidation sheet |
Letter from Supervisor regarding surgical placement |
|
QI/Audit |
Letter from supervisor regarding QI project |
Slides or summary of project |
Certificate/letter of presentation |
Publications/Presentations |
Publication with PubMed ID
Or
Letter of acceptance
Or
Presentation slides/Poster
Or
Book chapter as PDF
|
Letter of acceptance and attendance certificate from conference |
Copy of Prize certificate |
Teaching Experience |
Letter from supervisor regarding teaching |
Feedback (can be incorporated into letter) |
Certificate from educational event |
2024/25 Core Surgical Training Portfolio Scoring Guide
Please read this area thoroughly before uploading any evidence.
The tables below outline for each domain the level of achievement required for each indicator.
Below each table is information on the minimum mandatory evidence required to appropriately evidence the domain.
Additional notes to aid applicants in selecting the most appropriate indicator for each domain is provided below each table.
Exemplar domains are appended at the end of the document so that candidates can be aware of what is considered acceptable evidence.
A certified, authenticated translation should be provided for any documentation which is not written in English.
For all evidence that is uploaded, the following apply:
- Recognised surgical specialties include Plastic Surgery, Neurosurgery, Vascular Surgery, ENT Surgery, Cardiac/Thoracic surgery, ITU (ITU will no longer be accepted as evidence from 2025/26 onwards), Urology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, General Surgery, Orthopaedic Surgery, Paediatric Surgery
- Candidates should be wary of electronic signatures on documents. It is often possible to alter these and if so, they cannot be accepted as a "secure" signature. Candidates should double check that an electronic signature is not in a text box that is editable
- Please note: Where evidence asks for a supervisor’s GMC number to be provided, it is mandatory to do so – evidence submitted without this will not be accepted by the interview panel and will score zero points
Important:
Important
Any evidence provided in the next 2 sections must not be used to claim points in any other domain.
Commitment to specialty (all surgical specialties)
Any evidence provided in this section must not be used to claim points in any other domain.
Operative experience
Choose one of the following options
Option |
Indicator |
Involvement in 40 or more cases |
A |
Involvement in 30-39 cases or more |
B |
Involvement in 20-29 cases |
C |
Involvement in 11-19 cases |
D |
Involved in less than 10 cases/no evidence |
E |
Notes
Verified logbook evidence must be provided. Please see below for acceptable evidence.
Surgical experience
Choose one of the following options
Option |
Indicator |
Notes |
I have attended a surgical taster week (minimum 5 days, can be non-consecutive days)
Or
I have undertaken an elective in a surgical specialty (minimum 4 weeks)
Or
I have undertaken a surgical placement (see additional notes below) during my foundation training or equivalent (minimum 12 weeks).
|
A |
Proof of completion must be provided. Please see below for acceptable evidence.
Intent of surgical placement is acceptable if due to COVID redeployment the full 12 weeks were not undertaken in the surgical department. Please note, this option for scoring points will be removed from 2026 portfolio
|
I have not undertaken a surgical taster/elective |
B |
|
Evidence required
Evidence required for confirmation of Operative Experience
- This must be provided in the eLogbook format (www.elogbook.org.uk). This is available worldwide. If applying from outside the UK, please contact the e-logbook helpdesk if there are problems registering your cases.
- Consolidation report for each specialty to include:
- The summary sheet of the consolidation report
- Detailing the number of procedures undertaken and the date range of the operations undertaken
- Signed by a consultant with their full name, GMC number (or equivalent) and the date they signed it
- Involvement in procedures can include all of those assisted or supervised, but should not include those simply Observed, or those that all UK trainees are expected to have signed off as part of their foundation competencies
- Please do not provide a copy of your entire logbook
Only 1 consolidation report upload is permitted. Please amalgamate all specialties onto one report and have this signed by a supervisor on every page. They may need to see your whole logbook to agree to sign this sheet, but they can sign off on behalf of all specialties. Any further report sheets will not be considered for scoring. Instructions on doing this are available in the appendix along with an example document.
Evidence required for confirmation of Surgical Experience
A signed letter/document on official letterhead by the educational supervisor (or nominated consultant if on an elective placement) of your placement (elective, taster week or foundation placement in a surgical specialty) including:
- the surgical placement and hospital
- the dates undertaken,
- name of supervisor and their GMC no (or corresponding national medical registration equivalent)
- This cannot be a letter of acceptance that was sent before you started your elective
- The letter must include evidence of experience you have gained/learning opportunities. For example, attendance at theatre lists or surgical clinics
A surgical taster must have covered at least 5 days in total though does not need to be undertaken in consecutive days. A 5-day surgical taster booked for 2025 will receive 0 points.
Only one document should be uploaded for surgical experience/elective/placement or taster, if more than one is uploaded only the first letter will be reviewed by the assessor panel.
Quality Improvement/Clinical Audit
Quality Improvement/Clinical Audit
Option |
Indicator |
Notes |
I was involved as Lead in ALL aspects of a surgically themed clinical audit or QI project that has demonstrated change (such as second cycle/closed audit loop) |
A |
You participated in all stages of the audit/QI project (planning, data collection, data analysis, implementing change and involvement in at least two cycles) The project must be surgically themed |
I was involved as Lead in ALL aspects of a clinical audit or QI project that has demonstrated change (such as second cycle/ closed audit loop) |
B |
You participated in all stages of the audit (planning, data collection, data analysis, implementing change and involvement in at least two cycles) |
I was involved as a contributor in a clinical audit or QI project that has demonstrated change (such as second cycle/ closed audit loop) |
C |
You participated actively through multiple cycles but did not take a leading role in the project |
I was involved in a clinical audit or QI project |
D |
For example, you assisted with data collection for the project in at least one cycle |
None/other |
E |
|
Should the applicant have been at least a contributor to the project (categories A, B or C above), additional points will be awarded here for the presentation of the project which will be separately scored to the project itself as below.
A copy of the audit presentation must be provided to allow for presentation point scoring.
Option |
Indicator |
Notes |
Applicant presented both cycles of data or presented the intervention and change aspects of a project at a meeting |
A |
The applicant personally presented the project evidenced by first author in the presentation slides and letter of acceptance of presentation for meeting |
Applicant presented one cycle of the project at a meeting |
B |
The applicant personally presented the project evidenced by first author in the presentation slides and letter of acceptance of presentation for meeting |
Applicant did not present any aspect of the project |
C |
|
Additional notes
Please choose a scoring option based on a single quality improvement QI project/audit. If you have been involved in more than one, you will need to pick the QI project/audit corresponding to the highest-scoring statement which is applicable.
The purpose of this section is to evidence the process of designing a quality improvement project, gathering data and presenting it; identifying areas of change and implementing a change strategy before further collection of data and presentation of the change/improvement. Points are allocated depending on a candidate’s involvement in the process. To gain the top points for their evidence, a candidate has to demonstrate in their evidence all aspects of this.
Evidence required
Evidence required
- A letter from supervising consultant or QI/audit project stating level of involvement to satisfy the requirements described in the table above. The letter must be signed (can be digital signature to reproduce a physical signature) and include:
- consultant name and GMC number (or corresponding national medical registration equivalent)
- date
And
- Copy of audit project presentation outlining scope and impact (findings and improvements achieved) of project or, a summary of the project detailing scope and impact of the project.
To score full points the slides of a presentation must be included.
- A letter of acceptance from the meeting where presented confirming
- project title
- presenting author
- date
- name of organiser of meeting and GMC number
A copy of the meeting programme displaying the project and presenting author will also be acceptable.
Presentations and publications
Presentations and publications
Options |
Indicator |
Notes |
I have won the top prize for delivering an oral presentation at a national or international medical meeting convened by an accredited institution after being invited/selected to do so |
A |
Personal delivery of presentation required. This does not include "oral poster presentations" |
I am first author (please see appendix for definition) of a PubMed-cited publication (or in press) not including a case report or editorial letter |
A |
Evidence of PubMed ID number |
I have delivered an oral presentation at a national or international medical meeting convened by an accredited institution after being selected to do so |
B |
Personal delivery of presentation required. This does not include "oral poster presentations" |
I am first author a prize-winning poster or oral poster presentations presented at an international or national medical meeting convened by an accredited institution after being invited/selected to do so |
B |
Personal delivery of presentation required |
I am first author of a PubMed-cited publication of a case report or editorial letter (or in press)
Or
I have written a book chapter related to medicine which has been published (not self-published)
|
B |
Evidence of PubMed ID number |
I am a named co-author (please see appendix for definition) of one PubMed-cited publication (or in press) |
C |
|
I am first author for a poster or oral poster presentations presented at an international or national medical meeting convened by an accredited institution after being invited/selected to do so |
D |
|
I have given an oral presentation at a regional medical meeting after being invited/selected to do so |
D |
Personal delivery of presentation required |
I am a Cited Collaborative author (please see appendix for definition) as part of a research collaborative publication |
D |
Does not require named authorship alongside publication title |
None/other |
E |
|
Additional notes
Please see appendix for definition of Oral and Poster presentations. All events at which a presentation is made or journals to which an article is submitted must have an element of peer review.
All presentations require personal or virtual attendance – acceptance of a poster without attending is detailed above.
In situations where you are solely presenting or showing your poster because you have paid a fee to do so you may only select the "none/other" option. Please be wary of associations who offer this option as paying to present will not constitute a robust peer review process.
Points are not cumulative, please pick the option which you feel scores you the most points.
If you are listed in the journal text as joint first author, this will be considered equivalent to first author.
A medical meeting will typically be to an audience of doctors and/or other healthcare professionals attending away from their normal place of work for which attendees will be undertaking continuing professional development. Please the appendix for definitions of local, regional, national and international meetings.
For any publication in print to be considered for points allocation they must be PubMed (PubMed ID must be provided) cited to demonstrate that it is peer reviewed and relevant to medicine. Any candidate submitting without a PubMed searchable ID will score 0 points. Any candidate claiming a PubMed ID for an article which does not have this will potentially raise a probity concern with the interview panel.
Publications are accepted for points allocation if they have been accepted by a PubMed catalogued journal (in press) provided acceptance for publication without amendments is provided and evidence of the PubMed status of the journal is also provided.
Chapters written in medical books will not require pub med citing but rather the ISBN for the book is required as detailed below.
You must not in any circumstances claim an oral or poster presentation in this section if you have used the same quality improvement project/audit to claim points in the QI/audit section (Presentation points). Any points claimed for oral or poster presentations in this section must be completely different projects to any QI or audit work used to claim points in any other section.
Evidence required
For all oral and poster presentations (including prizes)
Copy of oral presentation slides/poster presentation to include:
- title of the presentation
- name of the first author/presenter
And
Copy of letter of acceptance of oral/poster presentation or copy of event programme citing presentation to include:
- the name of presenter or first author
- the institution convening meeting
- the date of the meeting/presentation
And
Certificate of attendance at event
If claiming for a prize, the following is also required
Copy of prize certificate or signed letter from the institution conferring the prize
For regional or local meetings, a letter from an educational supervisor with the above information is acceptable.
For all published articles or cases/letters as first author or co-author
Copy of the article (in pdf format or scanned) including PubMed ID
Or
Letter of acceptance for publication from accepting PubMed catalogued journal to include:
- the name of applicant as First author or co-author (clearly stating co-authorship)
- the confirmation of acceptance for publication without alteration
- the name of accepting journal
- the date of acceptance
- the title of the article
For Articles in Press
Letter of acceptance for publication from accepting PubMed catalogued journal to include:
- the name of the applicant as First author or co-author (clearly stating co-authorship)
- confirmation of acceptance for publication without alteration
- the name of the accepting journal
- the date of acceptance
- the title of the article
- a statement confirming that the journal is PubMed cited
For Book Chapter
Front and back cover of book to include:
- the title of the book
- the publishing house
- a ISBN number
And
Contents page showing chapter and applicant as author
For Cited Collaborative author
Copy of published article to include:
- the title of the article
- the name of the journal
- a PubMed ID
Or
Article page where collaborative authors are cited
Teaching experience
Teaching experience
Options |
Indicator |
Notes |
I have worked with local educators to design and organise a face-to-face teaching programme (a series of sessions defined as 4 or more) to enhance organised teaching for healthcare professionals or medical students
And
I have delivered at least 4 sessions of that teaching
|
A |
You have shown the ability to identify a gap in the teaching provided and have worked with local educators to design, organise and deliver a regional teaching programme.
As part of this process, you will have had input into the programme objectives and outline of sessions delivered |
I have worked with local educators to design and organise a teaching programme (a series of sessions defined as 4 or more) to enhance organised teaching for healthcare professionals or medical students in an online format (please see appendix for definition of online)
And
I have delivered at least 4 sessions of that teaching
|
B |
You have shown the ability to identify a gap in the teaching provided and have worked with local educators to design, organise and deliver a local teaching programme. As part of this process, you will have had input into the programme objectives and outline of sessions delivered |
I have worked with local educators to design and organise a teaching programme (a series of sessions defined as 4 or more) to enhance organised teaching for healthcare professionals or medical students. I have delivered at least 4 sessions of that teaching |
C |
You have shown the ability to identify a gap in the teaching provided and have worked with local educators to design, organise and deliver a local teaching programme. As part of this process, you will have had input into the programme objectives and outline of sessions delivered |
I have provided regular teaching for healthcare professionals or medical students over the last year (4 or more sessions/year)
Or
I have undertaken some educational activity focused on learning to teach
|
C |
Examples of teaching include but not restricted to regular bedside or classroom teaching, acting as a mentor to a student, acting as a tutor or delivering teaching in a virtual learning environment.
This would include any form of educational event focused on learning the skills of teaching – such as a training the trainers course online or otherwise
|
I have not provided teaching |
D |
|
Additional notes
Please note, evidence of formal feedback is required for all teaching experience.
Formal feedback describes either
Evidence of senior observation/feedback (e.g. observation of teaching assessment, developing the clinical teacher form, etc.)
Or
Collection and analysis of participants' feedback forms. Feedback forms include scores and number of people involved in providing the feedback.
Formal feedback does not need to be submitted as evidence but must be reviewed by Consultant and included in the letter they provide.
Evidence required
Letter from Consultant confirming involvement in designing and organising teaching programme. The letter must be signed (can be electronic signature) and include:
- consultant and their GMC number (or corresponding national medical registration equivalent)
- dates of activity
And
Evidence of formal feedback such as participant surveys or ISCP assessment. Please ensure the audience demographic is anonymised
Or
Letter from Consultant confirming involvement in delivering teaching and that participant formal feedback has been reviewed as acceptable. The letter must be signed (can be electronic signature) and include:
- consultant name and GMC number (or corresponding national medical registration equivalent)
- dates of activity
Or
A certificate for the educational event focused on learning how to teach
Please remember to check the appendix for advice on what level teaching should be categorised as.
Appendix
Please find below definitions for the terms described in the self-assessment guidance.
Glossary
Surgical Conference
Any surgical themed conference either organised or accredited by one of the UK Royal Colleges of Surgeons, an international/national surgical organisation or regional deanery will be accepted. Alternatively, any surgical themed conference with evidence of CPD accreditation will also be accepted. Non-accredited or undergraduate medical school society organised conferences will not be accepted. The conference must include a peer review process for selecting posters and presentations.
International
The activity is deemed international when an applicant has delivered it in a country other than your country of residence/education at time of delivery or a recognised international meeting that rotates to different countries so then may occur in the country of your undergraduate education or residence. This rotation does not include the constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
National
The activity is deemed national level when firstly the applicant has delivered it in the country where their undergraduate education took place, or at their time of residence, e.g. if an applicant delivered a presentation in Sweden whilst undertaking their undergraduate education in Sweden, this cannot be classified as ‘International’ just because it is outside of the UK: it would be national. The UK comprises the four nations, therefore presentations within these countries by someone who is residing in the UK is considered national, regardless of the country of residence, e.g., if the presentation is delivered in Wales by an applicant based in Northern Ireland, this is classified as ‘national’.
The activity must then have taken place at an event or to an audience where the participants and the organising members are taken from a national cross section.
Regional
The activity is deemed regional if it extends beyond a local hospital, single trust or university setting; for example, the deanery or sub-deanery region or a cluster of hospitals comprising different NHS trusts. If your activity extends beyond this, then this would count as national. If one hospital hosts two different medical schools, and the candidate undertakes the teaching in that hospital, this would not count as regional, it would be considered local.
Local
The activity is deemed local if it is confined to a hospital, trust or university setting. If your activity extends beyond your local hospital/trust, this will count as regional or national as appropriate.
Virtual or Online
Online would be deemed to be delivery of teaching to an audience using a virtual platform. Evidence of the platform that was used should be supplied including, where possible, and URL or link to the activity.
Face to Face
Face to face means activity that takes place in a physical setting and does not include online or virtual attendance.
Oral presentations
Oral presentations referred to in the document are with or without slides, in front of an audience of healthcare professionals. These can be of anything related to medicine, typically a case or case series, research or other topic. It would normally be expected to include a question-and-answer session.
Poster presentations
Poster presentations referred to are given with one poster or poster slide and sometimes a very short oral explanation with or without a question-and-answer session. If a poster is shown without an accompanying oral presentation, you can still claim points in line with the relevant statement.
First author
The first author is usually the person who made the most significant intellectual contribution to the work. That includes designing the study, acquiring and analysing data from experiments and writing the actual manuscript. They will have met the ICJME criteria for authorship. They will be cited/listed first on the title page of the published manuscript.
Joint First author
A joint first author can claim the same points as a first author, providing the published manuscript has a statement which confirms that both authors contributed equally to the manuscript within the contributions section of the paper.
Co-author
An author who is not the first author but has met the ICJME criteria (as above) for authorship and is cited/listed on the title page of the published manuscript.
Collaborative author
Collaborators will not have met all 4 of the ICJME criteria for authorship but are acknowledged due to their contribution made. They will be listed individually as collaborators in the manuscript usually under a collaborative group name but do not appear in the author list on the title page of the manuscript. Typically, this list is found at the end of the manuscript.
Hints, tips and pitfalls
Hints, tips and pitfalls
- The portfolio assessors will try their best to give you the maximum points they can, and hopefully will agree with your self-assessment. However, they only have ten minutes to look through the whole portfolio, if they have to look through a large document it will make it harder to give the correct points, please take account of all of the information above when submitting
- Ask advice from colleagues who have been through the process or who take part in portfolio assessment, they will be able to guide you through how information should be presented to maximize points
- Be careful about including evidence from potentially disreputable sources – if you have been asked to pay money to present something at a meeting; or if you have paid for a “2 day course” which only has 6 hours of online activity over two days it is unlikely that the activity has been appropriately peer-reviewed. This makes it unlikely that we can award the points
- Candidates should be wary of applying an electronic signature to a document. Some PDF programs will allow the text in the signature box to be altered after they have been uploaded. In this case, assessors will not be able to accept the document and it will score 0 points
- Any patient identifiable data will be removed and score 0 points. Any candidate who uploads PID will be asked to attend a meeting with the clinical lead to explain. Please check that you have not accidently done so
- Any data that is not directly relevant to your application should be very carefully thought through. For example, if a local meeting includes evidence of your presentation in the minutes, be careful of what other information is included in those minutes and redact accordingly
- When uploading an item of evidence to a domain, a single PDF that includes each item of evidence for that domain only should be created and uploaded. This will allow the assessors to assess your evidence more easily and prevent any confusion about what points should be awarded
- Do not upload the entire portfolio to each domain, as assessors have a limited time to review each portfolio, and they may inadvertently consider only the first piece of evidence in each domain, therefore limiting how many points you can score
- Attached to the end of this document there are examples of how a logbook should be evidence, please consider them when uploading your own:
- This logbook has been correctly signed, dated and named on the front page, it is the correct consolidation report for all specialties. The list of procedures is a consolidation and has also been correctly signed, dated and named. Note that on the front page, the candidate has filtered out any observed procedures to make sure they do not miscount. There are however only 48 procedures on the page submitted, so although the score will remain at 8 points, it is important to double check that these numbers match. Each page of the consolidation report has been signed
- Example of certificate for a conference which demonstrates attendance, the date and the organization which delivered the conference
- Example of a QI project with a letter appropriately signed by a consultant, a letter confirming presentation along with certificate to demonstrate that it was actually presented. To get the full points here, the candidate would also submit a copy of the slides or poster which was presented
Page last reviewed: 27 September 2024
Next review due: 27 August 2025