Hi,
So in the first assessment report, the assessors identified deficiencies in the following areas in my application:
- Foundational Abilities
- Roles 1,2,3,4,5 & 7
- Essential Components
After I submitted additional written evidence, the following areas were still deemed deficient:
- Foundational Abilities
- Roles 1, 4 & 7
The evidence I provided for the areas identified as deficient in the first report, which wasn't successful in demonstrating competence even after evaluation of the second evidence was as follows:
- Foundational Abilities:
- I provided a table highlighting where I considered the shortfall in information was within the original curriculum document. The assessors said this was insufficient evidence to meet this criterion. The evidence submitted for role 1 was also not sufficient (competence as an autonomous practitioner for Role 1 is linked to Foundational Abilities).
- Role 1:
- I submitted two case studies outlining clinical scenarios showing clinical reasoning and client centred physiotherapy to demonstrate autonomous practice. Although the second case study was deemed okay, in the first one, they said that low level of clinical reasoning was outlined as I hadn't made it clear how the treatment plan I mentioned in the case study fitted in with the patient's lifestyle and expectations.
- Role 4:
- In the initial assessment report, peer reviews were requested. I did provide written statements from my peers, but the assessors said that they were not peer reviews but more similar to a reference.
- Role 7:
- A component of role 7.1 is to show the ability to work autonomously as a physiotherapist. Since this is linked to Role 1, this was also deemed insufficient because of that.
Overall, I'd say make your application as complete as you can but don't be surprised to disappointed if any shortfalls are identified in the first moderation report. They'll tell you exactly what is required to demonstrate competence. Just make sure to provide those exact things and you'll be fine.