Standardised Patient Assessment

Proof required

Submit a 2-page reference document for your 3 selected tools with all four components (what it measures, scoring, thresholds + clinical actions, validation basis). Confirmed by your clinical supervisor as appropriate for your specialty.

What gets checked

• Three distinct validated tools are covered — using three different names for the same type of tool does not count as three tools.
• Clinical action for each threshold is specified — 'score above X is concerning' is not a clinical action; 'NEWS2 score ≥7 triggers immediate medical review and ICU referral discussion' is.
• Validation basis is cited — 'widely used' is not a validation basis; citing the original validation study is.

Common mistakes

• Tools chosen based on familiarity rather than relevance to your specialty — tools should be appropriate to your clinical setting.
• Thresholds documented without corresponding clinical actions.
• Validation section that describes the tool's purpose rather than the population and setting in which it was validated.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the student to give the clinical escalation action for a specific score on one of their tools.
• Ask what population the tool was validated on — 'general hospital patients' is not sufficient; the specific study population should be named.
• Ask what the limitations of one of their chosen tools are in their specific patient population.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your logbook with 10 anonymised entries, each showing the tool used, score, interpretation, clinical action taken, and supervisor countersignature.

What gets checked

• All 10 entries are countersigned by a registered clinical professional.
• Clinical action is documented for every entry — not just 'observation continued' but the specific action the score indicated.
• Patient identifiers are fully anonymised — no names, dates of birth, ward names, or MRN numbers.

Common mistakes

• All 10 assessments using the same single tool — variety is expected to demonstrate competency across tools.
• Clinical action field is blank or states 'no action required' without explaining why the score did not trigger action.
• Patient data not fully anonymised.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check that at least 2 different tools are represented across the 10 entries.
• Ask the student what clinical action they or the team took in response to the highest score in the logbook.
• Verify full anonymisation across all 10 entries.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your audit summary (2 pages) with findings from 10 anonymised records, countersigned by your clinical supervisor confirming the audit was conducted in the clinical setting. All data must be anonymised.

What gets checked

• Audit covers 10 records — not 3 or 4 records described as 'a sample'.
• Findings are specific — 'documentation was incomplete' is not a finding; 'NEWS2 score was documented but clinical action was missing in 6 of 10 records' is.
• Recommendation is implementable — 'improve documentation' is not a recommendation; 'introduce a NEWS2 clinical action checklist attached to the observation chart' is.

Common mistakes

• Audit conducted without supervisor support — clinical record access requires institutional approval.
• Findings that are positive without identifying any gap — a clean audit of 10 records is possible but unlikely; if genuine, the audit design should be checked.
• Recommendation that is unimplementable without senior leadership change — focus on what a ward team can change.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the student what gap they found most commonly in the audit and what caused it.
• Check that the recommendation is specific and implementable by a ward team.
• Verify that all 10 records are anonymised in the audit summary.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.