ENT · PORTFOLIO PLANNING

Multidisciplinary-working evidence check

Review one proposed MDT evidence item. These prompts ask what your own contribution and the subsequent care plan demonstrate—not merely whether you attended a meeting. They cannot determine whether the GMC will accept an item.

ONE ITEM · SIX QUESTIONS

Check your evidence idea

Think about one real multidisciplinary-working evidence item. Select an answer for each prompt; no document, patient detail or free text is requested. Your answers stay on this page and disappear when it closes.

1Does it show appropriate case selection?

CiP 5 includes deciding which patients need multidisciplinary discussion, identifying urgency and following the referral process.

2Were the relevant facts ready for discussion?

The guidance includes presenting the clinical history, comorbidity and investigations, and deferring an incomplete or out-of-date referral when appropriate.

3Is your own contribution identifiable?

An attendance list or agreed outcome alone may not show your interpretation, constructive discussion or management of uncertainty.

4Does it show how differing views were handled?

CiP 5 covers reaching an agreed plan across disciplines while managing uncertainty and potentially conflicting opinions.

5Does it show the decision was communicated and followed through?

The MDT outcome should lead to a clear plan, appropriate communication with the patient and care teams, and any needed investigations or follow-up.

6Is the evidence current and suitable to prepare?

Consider breadth, currency, attribution, and GMC requirements for anonymisation and verification.

FICTIONAL WORKED EXAMPLE

Meeting attendance does not show contribution

Starting item

An attendance register and the final MDT decision show that a meeting happened. Alone, they may not show why the case was selected, what the doctor contributed, how uncertainty was resolved, or how the decision reached the patient.

Stronger evidence discussion

Consider whether suitable, contemporaneous and verifiable material from routine practice demonstrates the doctor’s own case selection, preparation, reasoning, constructive discussion and communication of the resulting plan. Seek feedback on breadth and currency. Do not recreate records after the event.

This fictional comparison is illustrative, not a prescribed evidence set. Never enter patient-identifiable information into this tool.

SOURCE OF TRUTH

Check the current requirements

The GMC ENT guidance describes Capability in Practice 5, “Manages multi-disciplinary working”, and separate evidence-submission requirements. Read the full current document before relying on this planning prompt.

GMC Otolaryngology SSGSee CiP 5 and evidence-submission sections ↗Current guidance indexCheck for updates before applying ↗

Independent educational resource. Clinora is not affiliated with or endorsed by the GMC or JCST and cannot assess eligibility, verify evidence or predict an application outcome. Send a correction or suggestion.