Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Map the roles and responsibilities in an interprofessional team
1–2 weeks
In your clinical placement or training setting, identify an interprofessional team that you have had direct contact with (e.g. a ward team, community health team, or clinic team). Document each professional role present, their specific responsibilities within that team, their professional regulatory body, and how their scope of practice intersects or overlaps with at least one other role in the team. Produce a 1-page team map with annotated intersections.
Proof required
Submit your team map with all roles named, regulatory bodies identified, and at least 3 documented role intersections annotated with an explanation of how coordination is managed at each intersection.
What gets checked
- Each role lists its specific regulatory body — 'regulated by a professional body' is not sufficient.
- Role intersections are specific — 'nurse and physiotherapist both see the patient' is not an intersection; 'RN handover to physiotherapist specifies rehabilitation precautions set by the medical team' is.
- Team map is based on direct observation or participation — not derived from textbook descriptions of ideal team structures.
Common mistakes
- Team map based on theoretical team structure rather than the actual team you observed — real teams often have role variations that don't match textbook descriptions.
- Intersections listed without explaining the coordination mechanism used.
- Regulatory bodies listed incorrectly or conflated (e.g. listing NMC for physiotherapists, who are regulated by HCPC).
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the student to identify a situation where two roles in the team had overlapping responsibility and how it was managed.
- Check that regulatory bodies are correctly assigned — common errors include assigning HCPC-regulated roles to NMC or GMC.
- Ask what happens when a team member is absent — who covers that role and how does handover work?
Participate in and document an interprofessional handover or case discussion
1–2 weeks (finding the meeting + attending + documenting)
Attend and participate in a real interprofessional team meeting — a ward round, MDT meeting, case conference, or handover — where at least 3 professional roles are present. Document: who was present and their roles, the communication format used (e.g. SBAR, structured handover), what information was exchanged and by whom, any disagreements or clarifications that arose, and how decisions were reached. Submit your documentation with all patient data fully anonymised.
Proof required
Submit your meeting documentation (2 pages maximum) plus a countersignature from the meeting chair or your clinical supervisor confirming your attendance and participation. All patient identifiers must be anonymised.
What gets checked
- At least 3 different professional roles are documented as present.
- Communication format used is named (SBAR, ISBAR, or other structured format) — not just 'they discussed the patients'.
- Anonymisation is complete — no names, dates of birth, NHS/MRN numbers, or combinations that could identify an individual.
Common mistakes
- Documentation that describes the structure of an MDT meeting but is not based on an actual meeting attended.
- Countersignature from someone who was not present at the meeting — supervisor countersignature must confirm attendance at this specific meeting.
- Patient data that is de-identified by removing only the name but leaving DOB, diagnosis, ward, and consultant — these together are re-identifiable.
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm that the countersignature is from someone present at the specific meeting documented.
- Ask the student what disagreement or clarification arose in the meeting and how it was resolved.
- Check that anonymisation is complete — review the documentation yourself before accepting.
Reflect on a specific interprofessional communication challenge
1–2 weeks
Identify a real situation (from your clinical experience during this placement) where interprofessional communication was suboptimal — a miscommunication, a gap in handover, a delay caused by role confusion, or an unresolved team disagreement. Write a 2-page structured reflection: describe the situation without identifying any patient, what the communication failure was and its consequences, what contributed to it (role boundaries, time pressure, communication format failure), what you and the team could have done differently, and what system or process changes would have prevented it.
Proof required
Submit your reflection countersigned by your clinical supervisor who confirms the reflection is based on a real clinical experience. All patient and staff identifiers must be anonymised.
What gets checked
- The communication failure is specific — not a general reflection on the value of MDT working.
- Consequences are described — not just 'communication could have been better' but what actually happened as a result.
- System or process change section proposes something specific and implementable — not 'better communication'.
Common mistakes
- Reflection based on a hypothetical scenario rather than a real clinical experience — supervisor countersignature is required to prevent this.
- Consequences section that is speculative ('this could have led to harm') rather than describing what actually occurred.
- System change proposal that is too vague to be implemented — 'communicate better' is not a system change.
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Verify the supervisor countersignature confirms the reflection is based on a real experience.
- Ask the student what the specific consequences of the communication failure were — tests whether the reflection is genuine.
- Check that the system change proposal is concrete enough to be implemented by a ward or clinic team.
Part of