The Part 1 comprises a single paper of 125 multiple choice questions (MCQs) in single best answer format set in broad topic areas aligned with the Curriculum:

• Laboratory management competencies
• Analytical techniques and instrumentation
• Analytical methodology
• The chemical pathology of disease – biochemical basis
• The chemical pathology of disease – diagnosis and principles of management
• The chemical pathology basis of metabolic medicine

Approximately 25% of questions in any one examination will be knowledge based and 75% will concern the application of knowledge. The pass mark for the paper will be set by an objective procedure by an independently-chaired standard setting group where individual questions are reviewed to create a minimum standard using a modified Angoff process. 

Paper 1 is a three hour objective structured practical examination (OSPE) where candidates move between a series of 19 stations at nine minute intervals.  At 18 stations they are provided with laboratory material such as:

• analytical outputs (e.g. electrophoretic strips, chromatography scans)
• clinical scenarios (e.g. sample requirements, investigation protocol questions)
• quality control and/or external quality assurance data
• analytical, physiological or pharmacological calculations
• the 19th station will test communication skills using a simulated encounter with a clinician.

A final period of nine minutes is allowed for completion of answers at the end of the examination.

Paper 2 is a three hour bench practical which tests the candidate’s ability to address an analytical issue.  Candidates may be provided with raw experimental data and be required to perform simple laboratory bench practical work.  This multi-part paper tests the ability of candidates to plan an experiment, execute simple bench practical work, record results, analyse raw data and draw appropriate conclusions.  The paper is marked on the basis of the written work produced. 

Paper 3 is a three hour written paper in which candidates are required to interpret clinical cases and critically appraise journal articles.  In the clinical cases section candidates are given six questions comprising a brief history and laboratory results and are asked to describe and interpret them.  In the journal article evaluation section candidates are provided with two journal articles, on which they are asked to answer questions that test their critical reading and appraisal skills and their understanding of experimental methods and statistical techniques. 

The Oral examination comprises two sections, each with a pair of examiners. In the first, candidates are given two questions, one on a managerial topic and the other on either a clinical problem (for medically-qualified candidates) or analytical issue (for scientifically-qualified candidates). Candidates are allowed 30 minutes before the oral examination to review these questions and prepare their answers to them. The second section comprises 4 questions covering patient and laboratory safety and two more clinical problems; candidates are not allowed to review the questions in this section before the oral. 

Candidates intending to submit a dissertation must obtain agreement for their project proposal from the College. It is advisable to submit the project proposal well in advance of starting the project in case it is not deemed suitable or requires modification. Failure to submit a proposal or make any required amendments will mean that the dissertation will not be accepted. Candidates are recommended to begin to plan their project and submit a project proposal as soon as possible after entering higher specialist training or equivalent, and before completion of the Part 1 examinations.

In practice the project proposal will usually be submitted as soon as candidates have passed the Part 1 examination, but applications will be accepted at any time after candidates have submitted their application to sit Part 1. The dissertation itself must be submitted after passing the Part 1 examination.

Candidates wishing to submit evidence of a research degree or published papers are advised to do so as soon as they have submitted their application for the Part 1 examination to ensure that, should these not be acceptable, there is sufficient time to undertake a dissertation.

For further guidance, please see the section on ‘Guidance for candidates undertaking written options for the Part 2 examination’ in the Regulations and Guidelines – College examinations for Membership and Diplomas (see the Examinations section of the College website, www.rcpath.org/exams). 

All parts of the examination are marked by two examiners, neither of whom sees the marks awarded by the other. 

Module 1

Paper 1 (OSPE) is criterion-marked on the basis of model answers.  Each question carries equal weight.  A standard setting procedure is used to determine the notional passmark and appropriate scaling.  This paper carries 60% of the available marks for Module 1. 

Paper 2 is marked using the College closed marking scheme.  This paper carries 40% of the available marks for Module 1. 

Module 2

Paper 3 is criterion-marked on the basis of model answers.  The clinical cases and journal article sections of this paper carry equal weight.  This paper carries 60% of the available marks for Module 2.

The Oral examination is marked on the basis of model answers using standard mark descriptors and the College closed marking scheme.  This paper carries 40% of the available marks for Module 2.  The College operates an Egregious Error policy, and candidates who propose and persist in a course of action which in the examiners’ opinion is likely to result in death or serious harm to patients will be deemed to have failed.

Module 3

Dissertations are reviewed by two examiners and are graded as follows:

• A = pass
• B = modification or additional work required
• C = unacceptable.

The majority of dissertations receive a B grade from at least one examiner on first submission. Examiners’ comments are returned to the candidate. Resubmissions should include a covering letter which describes how the dissertation has been modified in response to the examiners’ comments; a resubmission which does so satisfactorily is likely to receive an A grade.

Dissertations must be of a standard equivalent to that required for peer-reviewed publication in order to achieve a Grade A.

MD or PhD theses and portfolios of published works are assessed in the first instance by the Chair of the Panel of Examiners, who will refer them to other examiners for further assessment if necessary.