6838 Re-introducing a regional mock MRCPCH Clinical examination using Covid recovery funding

Objectives Membership examinations are vital for trainee progression, culminating in the Clinical examination. Following changes to its format, trainees in our deanery no longer had access to a regionally co-ordinated Clinical examination course. Our large geographical area covers 200 miles end-to-end including remote rural locations with only one tertiary children's hospital, and the change in examination format post-pandemic had reduced previous tutors' confidence in supporting trainees. However, given the significance of the Clinical examination for trainees, provision of support needed addressing. Our aim was to reintroduce a formal face-to-face mock examination for trainees preparing for the MRCPCH Clinical examination. Methods All regional trainees were approached via e-mail from the regional paediatric school and newsletter. Trainees revising for the Clinical examination were invited to register for a teaching programme, peer mentoring and mock examination organised by a working group including a teaching fellow and deanery-appointed examination representatives. For the October 2023 diet 13 trainees enrolled for teaching and seven registered for the mock; five attended. The course was free for trainees, costs covered by Covid-19 recovery funding. The format was designed by the working group, two members of which had personal experience of the new examination format. The mock examination followed the current structure encompassing all stations, including patients in clinical stations. All examiners were briefed, provided with RCPCH guidance and mark sheets. Mentors were allocated for candidates. Candidates were asked to share their pre-course expectations and concerns and give post-course feedback. Results Candidates stated that their expectations were to practise, experience, and receive feedback on all stations. Candidates were most apprehensive about neurological and musculoskeletal examinations, missing clinical signs, history-taking, communication, summarising, and formulating management plans. Formal feedback was positive, including use of real patients, realistic scenarios, and objective examiners providing thorough feedback (figures 1–3). Candidates commented it gave a clear picture of what the examination would look like. Suggestions for improvement were more video, history and development stations, and the possibility of combining the mock with teaching sessions over two days. Conclusion Our re-introduction of the mock examination was successful, with universally positive feedback. Candidates found it useful, and examiners enjoyed it, showing interest in helping again. Our vision is to run the mock six monthly, embedding it within the annual training calendar and ensuring sustainable funding. We hope a regular event will improve buy-in from faculty and patients, enabling a high-quality day for examination preparation with potential for future expansion.