Marking guidance for the 2B exam can be viewed on the RCR site at here
+
+
For convienience the info is also copied below:
+
+
FRCR Part 2B Short Cases Marking Guidance
+
+ Candidates report on 25 cases and have the opportunity to attain five marks per case, so a maximum of 125 marks across the exam. No half marks will be allocated. Candidate responses are independently double marked and the final score awarded will be the average of the two examiner marks. The marking framework permits a difference of up to one mark between the two examiners. Any score difference of two or above will be flagged for review and discussion.
+
+ All questions include question-specific marking guidance to indicate key findings, diagnosis and recommended onward management. Examiners will use the following mark scheme descriptors for examiners alongside the marking guidance to score candidates’ responses:
+
+
+
+
+
+
Score
+
Marking descriptors
+
+
+
+
+
5
+
+
+
Detects all major findings and most minor observations.
+
Makes correct diagnosis or differential diagnoses using clinical information provided.
+
Makes safe further management plans with clear recommendations (including MDT or specialist referral if appropriate).
+
Demonstrates a clear understanding of likely further management required by different MDTs.
+
Report is clear, logical and concise.
+
May demonstrate knowledge beyond the core curriculum.
+
+
+
+
+
4
+
+
+
Detects most major findings (including those marked essential) and most minor observations.
+
Makes correct diagnosis or differential diagnoses using clinical information provided.
+
Makes safe further management plans with clear recommendations (including MDT or specialist referral if appropriate).
+
Report is clear, logical and concise.
+
+
+
+
+
3
+
+
+
Detects most major findings (including those marked essential) and some minor observations.
+
May or may not reach the correct diagnosis but demonstrates sensible clinical reasoning.
+
Safe differential diagnoses offered.
+
May not know full management plan but demonstrates enough knowledge not to compromise patient safety.
+
Report is clear although it may not be ideally structured.
+
+
+
+
+
2
+
+
+
Major/critical observations missed.
+
Undue significance placed on irrelevant or minor findings.
+
Limited understanding of pathology.
+
Fails to make correct diagnosis or provide reasonable differential diagnoses.
+
Failure to refer to appropriate MDT/clinical team or inappropriate over-investigation e.g. MRI and orthopaedic referral for benign bone lesions.
+
Unstructured, scattergun report.
+
+
+
+
+
1
+
+
+
Major/critical observations missed.
+
Undue significance placed on minor or incidental findings.