6 Understand the capabilities

Use the framework as a reference for practice

A capability framework can look like a long list of things to collect. That interpretation makes preparation unnecessarily burdensome. The framework describes expectations; your task is to show how your practice relates to them in the intended role.

Begin with the actual Specialist framework and the relevant person specification. The six-domain Specialist grade framework contains 44 numbered references. It is distinct from the GMC's nine-domain Generic Professional Capabilities framework. Keep the titles and numbering separate. [S03, S04]

In this handbook, SG before a number identifies the Specialist framework. The short cues below are only navigation labels. They do not replace the official wording, and a cue such as leadership cannot express every qualification in the full capability. Read the original provision beside your evidence map.

A compact locator

The locator summarises the 44 numbered references in the Specialist framework. [S03] Confirm the version used by the employer before finalising an application. The person-specification template provides context for how capabilities relate to a post; it is not permission for an applicant to waive a criterion independently. [S14]

Capability 1.4 is especially important when mapping clinical work: its explanation of independent practice expressly includes consultants and GPs. Read it with capability 1.5 on recognising limits and seeking help. These provisions support senior judgement and appropriate consultation; they do not establish permanent consultant supervision for every SAS doctor. [S03]

Start with a claim rather than a folder

For one relevant capability, write a modest statement about what you can demonstrate. “I am a good leader” is a conclusion. “I coordinated a multidisciplinary change to the discharge-summary process and can show how colleagues' feedback altered the design” is a claim that can be examined.

Next identify the practice supporting it. What happened? What did you personally do? What was the result or learning? Who can verify the contribution? What limitation remains? These questions produce an evidence entry rather than a collection of loosely related files.

The quality of the entry depends on its fit. A course certificate might support a learning claim, but it does not establish that you subsequently led a service change. A job plan may show that an activity is expected, but it does not alone show the quality of decisions made within it. A reference may corroborate observed work, but only within the observer's knowledge.

This is why several complementary forms of evidence can be useful. You are building an understandable account, not trying to find a single document that proves everything.

One item can support several claims

The hypothetical QI01 project concerns discharge summaries. The doctor helped define a measure, worked with colleagues, tested a prompt and responded to feedback about duplication. The same project may support different claims about improvement method, collaboration and learning.

Each mapping still needs an explanation. The project report can show the method. Meeting records or a colleague's account can help establish contribution. A reflection can explain what changed in the doctor's approach. Merely writing several capability numbers beside the file does not make every connection convincing.

The project cannot establish the doctor's entire clinical scope. It did not test every aspect of clinical judgement, safeguarding or education. Limiting the claim makes the evidence stronger, because the reader can see that you understand what the item does and does not demonstrate.

Conversely, you do not need to create 44 unrelated projects simply because the framework has 44 references. Reuse relevant evidence through clear cross-reference. The test is whether the claim is supported, not whether each row has a different attachment.

A worked mapping discussion

The hypothetical QI01 project can support distinct claims about improvement, collaboration and leadership, but each claim needs its own explanation. A project title cannot demonstrate all three.

The defined measure, aggregate findings and later revision support the improvement account. Team feedback on duplication helps explain collaboration; the doctor’s contribution to decisions and the project lead’s authority clarify leadership. Link each claim to the appropriate record or observer: personal reflection explains learning but does not independently verify a result.

An unrelated safeguarding evidence gap remains separate. The next actions are to obtain focused corroboration of the project contribution and address that gap, not to commission another improvement project merely to fill the map.

What a weak entry reveals

Consider an entry that says “Leadership course attended, certificate attached” against a broad leadership claim. The certificate may be authentic and relevant to development, but the application of learning is unclear. The next action could be to identify an existing example of changed practice, or agree an opportunity to use the learning.

Another entry says “Independent ward rounds” with no context. The missing information may include the patient group, decisions, limits, support and corroboration. The response may be to improve the scope profile and obtain specific feedback, rather than start a new clinical activity.

A third entry describes a project that the doctor planned but has not yet undertaken. That belongs in the development plan, not in the completed evidence column. A plan can be valuable, but it should not be presented as an achievement.

These distinctions help you identify the real gap. The map is a working record of what is known, what needs clarification and what opportunity is still required.

Clinical and broader professional capability

Do not let a portfolio become unbalanced simply because some evidence is easier to collect. Certificates, presentations and committee attendance can be visible, while clinical judgement is harder to describe. The harder work of explaining decisions should not disappear behind easier documents.

Equally, a strong clinical account does not make broader professional contribution irrelevant. Improvement, education, teamwork and critical use of evidence need attention appropriate to the role. The question is how they appear in your actual work and what you can demonstrate, not how many additional titles you can accumulate.

The later chapters deliberately use ordinary service activity. A teaching session can demonstrate planning and response to feedback. A carefully conducted review can show improvement method. A difficult team decision can show influence and recognition of limits. None needs to be inflated into a national achievement to be meaningful.

Making the map proportionate

Use T03 with a stable evidence identifier, a short claim and a limitation or next action. Keep the main map concise. The evidence record can hold the fuller explanation, and the source material can remain in its appropriate location.

For example, a row might refer to QI01 and say that it demonstrates a contribution to defining and testing a documentation change. The limitation might state that the outcome measure concerns documentation, not patient readmissions. The next action might be to obtain a specific account of the doctor's role from the project lead.

Review the map at meaningful points: after a development activity, before a career discussion or when preparing an application. Updating it after every minor event can consume time without improving the evidence. The purpose is to support decisions, not create a parallel administrative job.

Read the six domains through your own work

Connect each domain with a question about practice. The prompts below help identify relevant evidence. Read them alongside the official framework and the post criteria; they are not additional assessment requirements. [S03]

For professional values, behaviours, skills and knowledge, ask how your records show the quality of clinical decisions within your scope. Include uncertainty, communication, patient involvement and recognition of limits. A case discussion can illuminate reasoning, while a broader review may be needed to understand the range of practice. The clinical account should remain central rather than being displaced by easier-to-collect certificates.

For leadership and teamworking, ask which decisions you helped a team make and how your approach affected the work. Consider a disagreement you clarified, a concern you raised, or a change in your approach after feedback. The evidence should explain influence, collaboration and authority. Attendance at a meeting is a starting fact; the contribution is what happened because of your participation.

For patient safety and quality improvement, ask how you recognised a problem, acted through the appropriate arrangements and learned from what followed. Improvement evidence should include the question, method, findings and response. A project may also reveal human factors, such as poorly placed information or duplication that makes an intended safe process difficult to use.

For safeguarding vulnerable groups, examine relevant practice and the way you respond to barriers in care. Sensitive events may need a bounded educational account or appropriate corroboration rather than copied records. If your recent work does not provide suitable evidence, discuss how the relevant knowledge and response can be explored honestly, including clearly labelled case-based learning where appropriate. Learning from a scenario must remain distinguishable from experience of an actual event.

For education and training, consider how you identify needs, plan learning, provide feedback and respond when a learner struggles. Teaching colleagues, contributing to a supportive learning environment and helping patients understand their care may provide different kinds of evidence. Describe the educational role you actually hold and the judgement you exercise within it.

For research and scholarship, ask how you find, appraise and use information. A short evidence discussion can show more than a reading list if it explains relevance, uncertainty and the resulting action. A contribution to research can be valuable, but it should be described accurately and within the study's arrangements. Chapter 15 develops this approach.

Build one complete entry before filling the whole map

Begin with an example you understand well. In the hypothetical CLIN01 account, the doctor recognises a change in function, examines differing observations, identifies uncertainty and obtains advice. The entry can connect aspects of this reasoning with SG 1.3 and recognition of limits with SG 1.5. It does not establish every element of either capability from that short account alone.

The claim might read: “This account illustrates how I recognised uncertainty within a planned review and sought appropriate additional advice.” The evidence column identifies the reflective record and any separately available review of the decision. The limitation states what was not observed or followed up. The next action identifies whether a further discussion, another representative example or corroboration would resolve an important uncertainty.

The reviewer should be able to trace the entry in both directions. From the capability, they can find the relevant evidence. From the evidence, they can understand why the capability was selected. If either connection depends on a long verbal explanation, improve the short claim or choose a better item.

Once one entry works, use the same method across the map. Some entries will share evidence. Some will identify genuine development needs. Some may require clarification of how the post applies the framework. Completion means that these positions are understood, not that every cell has been made to look favourable.

Review the breadth of the map

After mapping several strong items, read across the domains before commissioning more work. Which areas are supported by practice, which rely mainly on self-report, and which are absent? Is your clinical evidence representative of the role or concentrated in one familiar activity? Are leadership and teaching visible through contribution, or only through attendance?

Discuss the important gaps with someone who understands the intended role. The aim is to choose the smallest useful next step that improves the account. A specific observation or feedback request may be enough. A substantial practice gap will need a supported opportunity. The map should tell you which of those actions is appropriate.

What the service needs to arrange

Clarify the relevant framework and person specification, and provide informed feedback on the evidence. If a claim is not convincing, explain what is missing. If an opportunity is required, identify who can arrange it. Do not substitute vague reassurance for review, or impose arbitrary document quotas without a basis.

The person providing feedback should distinguish educational advice from the formal assessment. A mentor can help you improve an entry without declaring that a panel must accept it. An employer should make any required format clear before the doctor invests time in an incompatible structure.