Fellowship Assessment Rubric

GeNext MedEd Foundation — Fellowship Assessment Rubric

Status: Master institutional template
Use: Adapt rating language and assessment methods to each approved programme.

Assessment details
- Learner:
- Programme:
- Competency / domain:
- Assessment method:
- Assessor:
- Date:
- Evidence reviewed:

Suggested rating descriptors
1 — Below expected programme level
Requires substantial guidance; important gaps affect safe or effective performance at the expected programme level.

2 — Developing
Demonstrates partial understanding or performance but requires frequent guidance and further structured learning.

3 — Meets expected level with supervision
Demonstrates the programme-defined standard consistently within the required supervision level.

4 — Strong performance at programme level
Demonstrates reliable reasoning, performance and professionalism with appropriate efficiency and insight within the permitted role.

5 — Exceeds expected programme level
Demonstrates advanced understanding or performance beyond the published programme expectation. This rating does not itself imply independent clinical privileges.

Not every programme or assessment requires a five-point scale. Observerships may use descriptive outcomes instead.

Domains for assessment where applicable
- Knowledge
- Clinical reasoning
- Diagnostic planning
- Procedural / technical skill
- Operative / peri-procedural planning
- Patient safety
- Communication
- Teamwork
- Professionalism
- Documentation
- Academic practice
- Reflective learning

Assessor comments
Strengths:

Areas for development:

Specific evidence supporting rating:

Outcome
- Meets expected standard
- Meets standard with development goals
- Further supervised learning required
- Reassessment required
- Programme lead review required

Learning / remediation plan
- Target competency:
- Action:
- Supervisor / mentor:
- Review date:
- Reassessment method:

Assessor signature / digital attestation:
Learner acknowledgement:
Date:

Assessment principle
Assessment should judge the published programme standard using appropriate evidence. Case volume, attendance or payment alone cannot establish competence or completion.