Portfolio Evidence – The Good
the Bad and the Ugly!
Evidence of Achievement -
Registration
Evidence of Achievement – Specialist
‘Assessed by trainer….’
• Registration – Additional evidence required
• Specialist - You do NOT need any additional
evidence for this. Signature alone is
sufficient
• This can often be signed in conjunction with
in house competency documents
Answered Questions and/or set piece of work
(Registration Portfolio)
• Suggested examples in portfolio
• Relates to the competency statements
‘Answered questions set by trainer…’
(Specialist Portfolio)
• This ensures the candidates knowledge has
been assessed at a specialist level
• What evidence?
• Written questions and answers (not
essays)
• Verbal questions and answers (great
practice for the examination)
• MCQs/Quizzes
‘One other piece of Evidence…’
(Specialist Portfolio)
• To be selected by the candidate and justified
in reflective log
• It should demonstrate application of
knowledge and skill at a specialist level
• One piece of evidence will not cover the
entire standard, so don’t bother trying!
Assessors Signature
• Registration – signed by verifier
• Specialist – signed by trainer. This is NOT
signed by the examiner. This should be
used by the trainer when reviewing each
standard. It is a way of ensuring each
standards has been reviewed as a whole and
completed to the necessary level.
What counts as Evidence?
Bear in mind
• Is it appropriate to the standard?
• Is it at the right level? (registration vs
specialist)
Examples
• In house assessments
• Annotated results
• Case study
• Reflective logs
Witness Statements
Objective observations that relate to a specific
task or action that are independently written
and verified by trainer
OR
Self witness statement written by trainee and
signed and authorised by trainer
Reflective Logs
A brief description of a process, incident or
event undertaken by or involving the trainee
that related to the standard. Should be
accompanied by the personal thoughts of what
has been learned and how this might be applied
in the future to their benefit and that of their
service users.
All of the evidence on the following slides
has been anonymised - all evidence that you
assess should be signed and dated.
GOOD EVIDENCE
Carbon Monoxide
Tutorial
• Assessed and dated
• Explanation of CO
formation
• Comment on result
• Analyser
• Explanation of co-
oximetry
GOOD EVIDENCE
Suitable for Registration rather than Specialist
Portfolio due to more generic nature of content Levey Jennings
Tutorial
• spurious result
• no rule violated
• Warning to
observe
subsequent
results
• violation – reject
run
GOOD EVIDENCE
Liver Function
Tutorial
• Function of metabolites
• Principles of technique
• Liver profiles
• Significance of results
• Evidence of marking
and feedback
GOOD EVIDENCE
Suitable for Registration rather than Specialist Portfolio due to more generic nature of content
Practical Quiz
Annotated to show
important features:
• packaging
• significance of code
• significance of
category B
• Significance of
transport standards
BAD EVIDENCE
Not enough detail
BAD EVIDENCE
Reads like it has been taken from a textbook rather than candidates own
words. Not applied to the context of the lab.
SATISFACTORY
EVIDENCE
Suitable for Registration
Portfolio due to the level
of subject matter
GOOD EVIDENCE
Excellent way of evidencing an
oral tutorial / Q&A session
Oral Assessment
on Transfusion
Knowledge
• Questions with
expected answers
• Answers ticked off
GOOD EVIDENCE
Evidence of marking and
feedback from Trainer
Multiple choice
questions
VERY GOOD EVIDENCE
Evidence of marking and
feedback
Written Questions
and Answers
• Comments from training
officers
• Responses from candidate
BAD EVIDENCE
What supravital stains do we use in haematology? Explain the
principals and practice of staining blood cells by Romanowsky
staining. Discuss the cellular component stained by the
constituents of the Romanowsky stain and the impact of pH on
Poorly worded the appearance of the red cells and the white cells.
question.
The multiple stains are based on the Romanowsky stain is use in laboratory.
Romanowsky used a mixture of old methylene blue and eosin to stain the
nucleus of a malarial parasite purple and the cytoplasm blue.
Subsequently, Giemsa modified the stain, combining methylene azure and
Answer reads like a eosin. The stain most commonly used in the UK is a combination of
textbook and is not in Giemsa’s stain with May Grunwald stain, it is therefore designated the May-
Grunwald-Giemsa (MGG) stain. The essential components of a
the candidates own Romanowsky-type stain are: (i) a basic or cationic dye, such as azure B,
which conveys a blue violet or blue colour to nucleic acids (binding to the
words. phosphate groups of DNA and RNA) and to nucleoprotein, to the granules
of basophils and weakly, to the granules of neutrophils and (ii) an acidic or
anionic dye, such as eosin, which conveys a red or orange colour to
haemoglobin and eosinophil granules and also binds to cationic nuclear
protein, thus contributing to the colour of the stained nucleus. A stain
containing azure B and eosin provides a satisfactory Romanowsky stain as
does a mixture of azure B, methylene blue and eosin. Staining must be
performed at the correct pH. If the pH is too low, basophilic components for
not stain well. Leucocytes are generally pale, with eosinophil granules a
brilliant vermillion. If the pH is too high, uptake of the basic dye may be
excessive leading to general over staining, it comes difficult to distinguish
between normal and polychromatic red cells, eosinophil granules are deep
blue or dark grey, and the granules of normal neutrophils are heavily
stained, simulating toxic granulation.
Candidates must put
evidence into their
own words.
The answer in the
previous slide has
been copied from a
textbook.
Plagiarism is not
acceptable.
The candidate’s
training officer should
pick this up.
BAD ANSWER
Describe the internal and external quality
assurance procedures for the measurement of red
cell folate.
There are errors in the Internal QC performed every 24 hours. Which cover at least
answer. one level of controls. Quality control results that do not fall
within acceptable ranges may indicate invalid test results. For
that reason there are 2 types of ranges been setup if the QC
fall in yellow ranges (i.e. 2 standard deviation from the main).
The answer is not well Re calibrates the analyser and than re run the QC. And if
written making it difficult QC>30 from mean. Also needs to documents as well.
For external QC laboratory participates in NEQAS. Results can
to understand. be submitted online. And than NEQAS will send us a copy of
reports, which can be stored on Q-Plus. Previous NEQAS
report attached.
The candidate does not
fully answer the external
quality assurance part of
the question.
GOOD EVIDENCE
Good annotations that demonstrate that the candidate knows what they
are looking at and what it means.
GOOD EVIDENCE
Good annotations. Even better than evidence in the previous slide as the
candidate has used arrows to mark up and demonstrate their
understanding of each part of the image.
GOOD EVIDENCE
Good annotations.
Good demonstration of
candidate’s understanding.
BAD EVIDENCE
No annotation.
No demonstration of
candidate’s understanding of
the section they have
underlined.
