SCA feedback statements: what they are and what they are not

When a case falls short in a domain, the RCGP does not simply hand you a lower grade and move on. It gives you feedback drawn from a fixed, published list of statements — the college’s own wording, describing specifically what was missing. Understanding what these statements are, and just as importantly what the RCGP itself says they are not, changes how useful they can be in your preparation.

26 statements across three domains

The RCGP publishes 26 feedback statements in total: 8 for Data Gathering and Diagnosis, 9 for Clinical Management and Medical Complexity, and 9 for Relating to Others. Each one names a specific gap rather than a general impression — here is one example from each domain, in the college’s own wording:

Data gathering was insufficient to enable safe assessment of the condition/situation

Inappropriate or inadequate arrangements for follow-up, continuity and/or safety netting

Communication skills, including the non-verbal, responding to cues and/or active listening were insufficiently demonstrated

Statements like these are considerably more actionable than a single grade — each one tells you exactly what a stronger consultation would have included, rather than leaving you to guess which part of a case cost the marks. A few more, again in the college’s own wording, give a sense of the range each domain covers:

Differential diagnoses or hypotheses were inadequately generated or tested

The management plan relating to prevention, health promotion or rehabilitation was inadequate or inappropriate

Safeguarding concerns were inadequately recognised or responded to

That range is deliberate. 8 statements cannot cover every possible way a history or a differential could go wrong, but they cover the recurring ones, which is exactly what makes them a useful checklist rather than an exhaustive rulebook.

What the RCGP says these are — and are not

It is worth reading the college’s own framing carefully, because it is easy to over-interpret a feedback statement as more than it is. The RCGP is explicit that these statements are not performance indicators, that they play no part in the marking itself, and that candidates who pass the SCA receive them too.

Why that framing matters for how you prepare

Because a statement carries no marking weight of its own, it is not something to reverse-engineer or treat as a scorecard — you cannot infer your circuit result from which statements you did or did not receive, and receiving one is not by itself evidence that a case failed. What it is, instead, is a specific, named description of something a strong consultation would have done differently — closer to a worked comment on an essay than to a mark on a page. Treating it as formative signal rather than as a verdict is exactly the RCGP’s own intent, and it is what makes the statements worth practising against at all.

It also means a statement is not something to argue with or dismiss. Since it plays no part in the marking, there is nothing to contest — its only value is what it tells you about the consultation, so the useful response is always to look at what it is describing rather than to relitigate whether it applies.

Using them formatively in practice

The statements are most useful when they change what you do in your next practice case, not just how you feel about the last one.

• After a practice case, read the statements for any domain that came back weaker, and treat the exact wording as a checklist for what a stronger version of that consultation would have included.
• Carry one specific statement into your next few practice cases as something to actively correct, rather than trying to fix everything a single case revealed at once.
• Look for a pattern across several cases — a statement that keeps recurring across different cases is more informative than one that appears once and is never seen again.
• Read a statement alongside which domain it sits in. A recurring Clinical Management and Medical Complexity statement, for instance, is worth extra attention given how that domain is weighted.
• Do not fixate on receiving any single statement in isolation. Remember the RCGP’s own point: candidates who go on to pass the SCA receive them too, so one statement on one case is information, not a verdict.

Where the statements sit in the bigger picture

The 26 statements only make full sense alongside what each domain is actually marking — the same three domains, Data Gathering and Diagnosis, Clinical Management and Medical Complexity, Relating to Others, that every case is graded against. Reading the statements without that context turns them into a list of things to avoid; reading them alongside the domains turns them into a map of what each domain is actually looking for.

ZWIP gives you the RCGP’s own published feedback statements, in the college’s own wording, after every practice case that falls short in a domain. Register free to run a case and see exactly which statements your consultation would have received.