Publication

STP Final Assessment – IACC Marking Criteria (2022) v5

text

About the IACC 2022 marking criteria

You must read this information in conjunction with the IACC 2022 trainee guidance and the template for your critical reflective narrative submission.

To pass the IACC 2022 you must satisfy your assessors that you demonstrate your readiness to practise at the level of a newly qualified threshold entry Clinical Scientist and that you present no concerns relating to safety or professional standards.

You must clearly demonstrate, through your critical reflection and in relation to the Academy of Healthcare Science (AHCS) – Good Scientific Practice (GSP) standards (2021) that you are fully aware of the scope of your own professional practise. You must demonstrate an ability to robustly self-regulate in areas where you have yet to complete, to ensure that both professional standards and patient safety are maintained. You should focus the majority of your critical reflective narrative on routine aspects of your role. You must achieve a pass in each of the five GSP domains and your global statement.

Assessors will use the qualitative criteria below to form a judgement on the quality, completeness and persuasiveness of your narrative interview. These criteria are designed to assist the panel in forming an overall, evidence-based and holistic judgement regarding your readiness to practise in relation to each of the Academy for Healthcare Science – Good Scientific Practice (2021) domains and as a newly qualified threshold entry Clinical Scientist.

The interview allows the assessors to authenticate your narrative and probe aspects of your scope of practice and allows you to clarify aspects of your readiness to practise each of the five GSP domains. You must pass each individual GSP domain to pass the assessment.

After consideration of your critical self-reflective narrative and interview, the panel will recommend a provisional outcome on your readiness to practise as a newly qualified threshold entry Clinical Scientist, a pass or fail.

resources text

Qualitative criteria

Holistic narrative

  • Excellent – Narrative of an excellent standard, reflecting clearly the GSP domains.
  • Good – Narrative of a good standard, referencing the GSP domains well.
  • Requires improvement – Narrative of a reasonable standard, where it references the GSP domains. However, it lacks the analytical skills needed to demonstrate the learning outcomes.
  • Poorly executed – Narrative is descriptive rather than analytical; lack of justification given for statements made. The GSP domains are inconsistently or inaccurately or not referenced.

Critical evaluation

  • Excellent – A critically evaluative approach, demonstrating the ability to generate new perspectives as a result of their experiences over the duration of the programme. Excellent ability to evidence transferable competency.
  • Good – Produced a good evaluation of their learning related to experiences, with evidence of critical evaluation. Demonstrated a good ability to evidence transferable competency.
  • Requires improvement – Low level, superficial application of evidence to demonstrate understanding of professional practice. Limited ability demonstrated of transferable competency.
  • Poorly executed – Limited or no evidence presented to demonstrate understanding of professional practice. Shows limited or no ability to evidence transferable competency.

Use of evidence

  • Excellent – Can propose, with evidence, how their experiences will inform current and future practice.
  • Good – Demonstrated the knowledge needed to develop own learning, and application to own practice.
  • Requires improvement – Demonstrates understanding but does not relate to own practice or development of learning.
  • Poorly executed – Emphasis is on fact-reporting rather than demonstrating a deeper understanding of professional development.

Analysis (self-advocacy)

  • Excellent – Demonstrated a high level of self-analytical skills and questioning of own competence.
  • Good – Demonstrated a good level of self-analysis and shown they can use this knowledge to further their professional development.
  • Requires improvement – Lack of self-analysis which results in little acknowledgement of how to develop professionally.
  • Poorly executed – Little or no self-analysis which results in little or no acknowledgment of professional development.

Safe practice (self-advocacy)

  • Excellent – Demonstrated a rigorous understanding of safe scientific practice. Takes full responsibility for own actions.
  • Good – Demonstrated a good understanding of what it means to work safely and effectively at this level. Takes some responsibility for own actions.
  • Requires improvement – Limited understanding demonstrated of what it means to work safely. Takes limited responsibility for own actions.
  • Poorly executed – Limited or inaccurate understanding demonstrated of what it means to work safely. Takes no responsibility for own actions.

Continuous Professional Development (self-advocacy)

  • Excellent – Demonstrated an outstanding, proactive commitment to ongoing professional development including taking on leadership responsibilities.
  • Good – Demonstrated a good proactive commitment to ongoing professional development including taking on leadership responsibilities.
  • Requires improvement – Demonstrated limited directed professional development with little evidence of taking on leadership responsibilities.
  • Poorly executed – Professional development limited to specified competencies and is superficial with no evidence of taking on leadership responsibilities.
text

Overall recommended outcome

The panel will consider your critical reflective narrative and interview and will recommend an overall pass or fail outcome on your readiness to practise at the level of a newly qualified threshold entry Clinical Scientist.

This comprises two elements:

  • You must pass each individual GSP domain and the global statement.
  • You must pass the three overall assessment criteria indicating your readiness to practise by demonstrating that you can:
    • recognise the scope of your own competence to practise as an autonomous professional and explain how you will self-regulate practise safely within this scope
    • ensure appropriate standards and patient safety are maintained at all times
    • demonstrate your ability to work safely & effectively at the level of a newly qualified threshold entry clinical scientist in your specialty

Criterion Pass/
Fail
Feedback comments
GSP 1: Professional Practice
GSP 2: Scientific Practice
GSP 3: Clinical Practice
GSP 4: Research, Development and Innovation
GSP 5: Clinical Leadership
Global statement
Trainee has demonstrated ability to recognise the scope of their own competence and to self-regulate to practise safely within this scope as an autonomous professional.
Trainee has demonstrated the ability to ensure appropriate professional standards and patient safety are maintained at all times.
This trainee is ready to practise at the level of a newly qualified threshold entry Clinical Scientist in your specialty.

 

Last updated on 17th May 2022

  • STP Assessment
  • Guidance
  • 2022