Candidate X: Part 1 Mock Feedback

Anonymised example: Autumn 2026 Part 1 mock examination

Individual performance feedback

Candidate X: evidence-led review of 125 questions, benchmarked against the six-candidate cohort.

1. Overall performance

The pass mark was 65%. Candidate X scored below the threshold and below the cohort mean.

Total score52/125

Percentage41.6%

Minimum whole-mark pass82/125

Deficit to pass30 marks

Cohort mean58.0%

Position: 6th of 6. Candidate X was 16.4 percentage points below the cohort mean. She completed all 125 questions in 2 hours 35 minutes. A further 30 correct answers would reach the minimum whole-mark pass score of 82.

2. Section-by-section performance

The 65% line is a reference benchmark, not a separate pass rule for each section. RAG: Green ≥65%, Amber 50–64.9%, Red <50%.

Bacteria

22.7%

Virus

52.2%

Mycology

85.7%

Parasitology

42.9%

Antibiotic

58.8%

Infection/Vaccine

46.2%

Lab

30.8%

IPC

20.0%

Score	Candidate X	Cohort	vs 65%	RAG
5/22	22.7%	50.0%	-42.3 pp	Red
12/23	52.2%	60.1%	-12.8 pp	Amber
6/7	85.7%	71.4%	+20.7 pp	Green
3/7	42.9%	61.9%	-22.1 pp	Red
10/17	58.8%	60.8%	-6.2 pp	Amber
6/13	46.2%	52.6%	-18.8 pp	Red
8/26	30.8%	59.6%	-34.2 pp	Red
2/10	20.0%	56.7%	-45.0 pp	Red

3. Topic profile

Candidate X’s section percentages compared with the cohort mean and the 65% reference.

Candidate XCohort mean65% reference

The cohort benchmark is indicative only because n=6. A single question changes small sections substantially.

4. Performance by question type

All three question types were below 45%. Decision performance was highest at 43.2%, while Understanding was lowest at 40.5%.

Question type	Score	Candidate X	Cohort	vs 65%	RAG
Decision	16/37	43.2%	55.4%	-21.8 pp	Red
Recall	19/46	41.3%	59.8%	-23.7 pp	Red
Understanding	17/42	40.5%	58.3%	-24.5 pp	Red

5. Key insights

Strengths

Mycology was the clear strength at 85.7%, 14.3 points above the cohort. Antibiotic and Virus were the next strongest sections, at 58.8% and 52.2% respectively.

Critical weakness

IPC was 20.0%, Bacteria 22.7%, and Lab 30.8%. These high-volume sections accounted for 43 missed questions and require most of the study time.

Pattern analysis

The weakness crosses Recall, Decision and Understanding questions, so this is not explained by one question style. Twenty-five missed items were answered correctly by at least two-thirds of the cohort and represent the first recoverable marks.

Exam-process signal: Candidate X completed all questions with 25 minutes remaining. Item-level timing is unavailable, so this cannot prove rushing. In the next mock, use remaining time to revisit flagged answers and justify why each alternative is wrong.

6. Next 14 days

Suggested daily structure: 30 minutes closed-book retrieval, 40 minutes targeted review, and 30–45 minutes of timed questions plus error correction.

Course resource: Microregistrar MoodleCloud: content list

Day 1Build the error log

Re-answer all 73 missed items without notes. Classify each error as knowledge gap, misreading or failed elimination. Mark the 25 priority-review items for early retesting.

Day 2Bacteria: identification

Review organism profiles, culture media, biochemical identification and clinically important intrinsic characteristics. Complete 25 timed questions.

Day 3Bacteria: clinical decisions

Revise syndrome-to-organism links, diagnostic choices, resistance mechanisms and treatment decisions. Explain every rejected option.

Day 4Laboratory: AST

Review susceptibility methods, breakpoint interpretation, resistance detection, intrinsic resistance and quality control.

Day 5Laboratory: methods

Revise microscopy, culture, molecular diagnostics, serology, specimen selection and interpretation of discordant results.

Day 6IPC

Study transmission-based precautions, isolation, exposure management, decontamination, outbreaks and healthcare-associated infection decisions.

Day 7Checkpoint

Complete 63 mixed questions in 90 minutes. Review every incorrect or uncertain answer and update the error log.

Day 8Virology

Consolidate viral diagnosis, receptors, replication, resistance, vaccination and post-exposure decisions with a 25-question block.

Day 9Antimicrobials

Review mechanisms, spectra, resistance, interactions, toxicity and antimicrobial selection. Use rapid-retrieval tables.

Day 10Infection and vaccines

Revise vaccine indications and contraindications, pregnancy, exposure management and common clinical infection pathways.

Day 11Parasitology

Review malaria, helminths and protozoa through organism, diagnosis, treatment and prevention grids.

Day 12Protect Mycology

Use a short 20-question block to maintain the strongest section, then spend the remaining time on mixed Bacteria, Lab and IPC questions.

Day 13Full timed mock

Complete 125 questions in 180 minutes. Flag uncertainty on the first pass and deliberately use remaining time for review.

Day 14Close the loop

Rework all Day 13 errors, retest the 25 priority themes and finish with a 30-question block targeting at least 70%.

7. Missed questions

All 73 missed questions are listed. “Priority review” means at least 67% of this six-person cohort answered correctly; it is a prioritisation signal, not a measure of item quality.

Question	Section	Type	Cohort correct	Priority
Q2	Lab	Recall	17%	Review
Q7	Lab	Understanding	83%	Priority review
Q8	Infection/Vaccine	Recall	67%	Priority review
Q9	IPC	Decision	83%	Priority review
Q10	Lab	Understanding	17%	Review
Q11	Bacteria	Recall	67%	Priority review
Q12	Bacteria	Decision	50%	Review
Q13	Bacteria	Recall	50%	Review
Q14	Virus	Decision	33%	Review
Q15	Virus	Understanding	33%	Review
Q16	Virus	Understanding	17%	Review
Q17	Virus	Understanding	83%	Priority review
Q18	Bacteria	Recall	33%	Review
Q21	Bacteria	Understanding	83%	Priority review
Q23	Bacteria	Recall	50%	Review
Q24	Bacteria	Decision	83%	Priority review
Q25	Parasitology	Understanding	67%	Priority review
Q27	Virus	Recall	17%	Review
Q30	Virus	Recall	50%	Review
Q31	Infection/Vaccine	Decision	0%	Review
Q34	Mycology	Decision	33%	Review
Q38	Parasitology	Understanding	50%	Review
Q39	Parasitology	Understanding	50%	Review
Q42	Antibiotic	Recall	83%	Priority review
Q43	Bacteria	Decision	67%	Priority review
Q44	IPC	Decision	50%	Review
Q45	Virus	Decision	33%	Review
Q47	Lab	Recall	33%	Review
Q51	Infection/Vaccine	Decision	17%	Review
Q54	Lab	Understanding	83%	Priority review
Q55	IPC	Decision	50%	Review
Q57	Antibiotic	Recall	17%	Review
Q60	Antibiotic	Understanding	50%	Review
Q61	Antibiotic	Understanding	33%	Review
Q62	Bacteria	Understanding	33%	Review
Q63	Bacteria	Understanding	50%	Review
Q64	Lab	Understanding	67%	Priority review
Q65	Lab	Understanding	67%	Priority review
Q66	Infection/Vaccine	Decision	83%	Priority review
Q67	IPC	Recall	67%	Priority review
Q68	Bacteria	Understanding	67%	Priority review
Q69	Bacteria	Recall	50%	Review
Q70	Lab	Recall	83%	Priority review
Q72	Virus	Recall	67%	Priority review
Q75	Virus	Decision	33%	Review
Q76	Antibiotic	Recall	83%	Priority review
Q77	Lab	Recall	50%	Review
Q78	Virus	Decision	67%	Priority review
Q79	Virus	Decision	17%	Review
Q81	Bacteria	Recall	33%	Review
Q82	Bacteria	Recall	33%	Review
Q83	Bacteria	Recall	33%	Review
Q85	Bacteria	Recall	67%	Priority review
Q87	Antibiotic	Understanding	17%	Review
Q89	Lab	Recall	50%	Review
Q90	Lab	Understanding	83%	Priority review
Q92	Lab	Understanding	50%	Review
Q94	IPC	Understanding	33%	Review
Q95	Lab	Understanding	33%	Review
Q97	IPC	Recall	50%	Review
Q99	IPC	Decision	83%	Priority review
Q100	Antibiotic	Recall	17%	Review
Q101	Infection/Vaccine	Decision	50%	Review
Q105	Lab	Recall	33%	Review
Q108	Lab	Understanding	67%	Priority review
Q109	Lab	Understanding	50%	Review
Q111	IPC	Decision	50%	Review
Q112	Lab	Recall	33%	Review
Q113	Infection/Vaccine	Recall	67%	Priority review
Q115	Parasitology	Decision	33%	Review
Q119	Infection/Vaccine	Decision	0%	Review
Q122	Bacteria	Decision	17%	Review
Q124	Lab	Understanding	17%	Review

8. How to use this feedback

Prioritise the intersection of a weak section and a missed recall/decision item. Re-answer before reading notes, explain why each distractor is wrong, and retest after 48–72 hours. Record scores from the Day 7 and Day 13 timed blocks; the target is at least 65%, with no section below 50%.

Method note: Any unanswered entries would be scored as zero; Candidate X answered all 125 questions. Difficulty ratings were not used to generate the study priorities because they were supplied as subjective. Topic labels were normalised only to create the eight requested sections. Cohort comparisons are descriptive and unstable at n=6.