Specialty training
Applications for UK Specialty Training
Every application window with the date it closes, and what each UK specialty application actually scores, read from the recruitment office's own published guidance.
Application windows.
What scores for Paediatrics ST1.
You describe your work in writing and upload nothing. Those answers decide who is interviewed. The interview alone sets your rank.
Confirmed2026 to 2027 recruitmentRCPCH (Paediatrics National Recruitment Office, PaedsNRO)Read 11 September 2026
How selection works
Two clinical assessors score the anonymised written examples in your Oriel application. No supporting documents are uploaded. Sections 1 and 2 reward several distinct reflective examples; the QI/audit section allows up to two projects but awards marks for the stronger example.
What is scored
The domains below add up to 29 · 2026 round figures · 2027 not yet published.
Transferable clinical capabilities
up to 8
| Achievement | Points |
|---|---|
| Five clear and distinctly different examples relevant to a career in paediatrics with reflection | 8 |
| Four clear and distinctly different examples relevant to a career in paediatrics with reflection | 7 |
| Three clear and distinctly different examples relevant to a career in paediatrics with reflection | 6 |
| Three clear examples relevant to a career in paediatrics with reflection | 5 |
| Two clear examples relevant to a career in paediatrics with reflection | 4 |
| One clear example relevant to a career in paediatrics with reflection | 3 |
| Generic description of example(s) with minimal relevance to a career in paediatrics | 2 |
| Generic description of example(s) with no relevance to a career in paediatrics | 1 |
| No evidence provided | 0 |
Two 50-word text boxes per example, repeated five times: description of the capability with its relevance to paediatrics, then how it has prepared the applicant for a career in paediatrics. Note the step from 5 to 6 points: three examples score 5, three distinctly different examples score 6.
Personal achievements and reflection
up to 8
| Achievement | Points |
|---|---|
| Five clear and distinctly different examples relevant to a career in paediatrics with reflection | 8 |
| Four clear and distinctly different examples relevant to a career in paediatrics with reflection | 7 |
| Three clear and distinctly different examples relevant to a career in paediatrics with reflection | 6 |
| Three clear examples relevant to a career in paediatrics with reflection | 5 |
| Two clear examples relevant to a career in paediatrics with reflection | 4 |
| One clear example relevant to a career in paediatrics with reflection | 3 |
| Generic description of example(s) with minimal relevance to a career in paediatrics | 2 |
| Generic description of example(s) with no relevance to a career in paediatrics | 1 |
| No evidence | 0 |
The question instructs: 'Avoid examples already used in question 1.' Same nine-step ladder as domain 1.
Quality Improvement Project (QIP)/Audit relevant to application level and experience of applicant
up to 5
| Achievement | Points |
|---|---|
| Evidence of having planned/coordinated and presented a good quality audit/QIP at a regional/national/international meeting as well as description of results/recommendations | 5 |
| Evidence of having planned/coordinated and presented a good quality audit/QIP at a local/departmental meeting as well as description of results/recommendations | 4 |
| Evidence of having planned/coordinated and presented a good quality audit/QIP at a local/departmental meeting | 3 |
| Involved in planning/coordinating a relevant clinical audit/QIP | 2 |
| Participation in relevant clinical audit/QIP but was not involved in planning/coordination | 1 |
| No audit/QIP undertaken | 0 |
Route-specific and important: at the top tier this domain groups REGIONAL with national and international - 'a regional/national/international meeting' - so a regional QIP presentation scores the full 5, the same as an international one. That is unlike domain 4, where regional sits a tier below national/international. Marks are awarded for the best example only, i.e. the one that scores highest according to the criteria. The Oriel form asks which of Audit, QI project, or QI project/Audit with multiple cycles best describes the project, then two 50-word boxes on the applicant's role and on how/where it was presented and any change in practice.
Research and academic achievements
up to 3
| Achievement | Points |
|---|---|
| Detailed description of involvement in research/academic work with at least one of: national/international presentation, publication as first or last author | 3 |
| Detailed description of involvement in research/academic work with presentation at a local/regional meeting or publication as co-author | 2 |
| Detailed description of involvement in research/academic work | 1 |
| No evidence or description of research/academic achievement that lacks detail | 0 |
The lowest-ceiling and highest-leverage domain: the whole of a doctor's research and presentation record is worth 3 points out of 30, with 1 more for a research qualification, against 8 for five reflective examples of clinical capability. The header in the document's contents list reads 'Academic achievements relevant to application level and experience of applicant (Out of 3 +1)'. The Oriel drop-down offers: Some involvement in a research project/piece of academic work; Led on a research project/piece of academic work; Significant contribution to recruitment; Significant contribution to data collection; Significant contribution to data analysis; Presentation at local meeting; Presentation at regional meeting; Presentation at national/international meeting; Publication as co-author; Publication as first or last author. Marks are awarded for the best example only.
Education - involvement in delivering education/teaching
up to 5
| Achievement | Points |
|---|---|
| Clear evidence of designing, delivering and leading education/teaching, including evaluation from learners and utilisation of feedback for future sessions | 5 |
| Clear evidence of designing, delivering and leading education/teaching, including evaluation from learners | 4 |
| Clear evidence of designing, delivering and leading education/teaching, without evaluation | 3 |
| Evidence of involvement in designing and delivering education/teaching | 2 |
| Very limited evidence of involvement in delivering education/teaching | 1 |
| No evidence | 0 |
The contents list names this 'Teaching relevant to application level and experience of applicant (Out of 5)'. Marks awarded for the best example only. There is no separate domain for a teaching qualification; a teaching qualification is not mentioned anywhere in the framework.
A conference counts here only through how you describe it in writing. Nothing is uploaded. The directory shows what each listing could be worth to Paediatrics.
Still counts before 19 Nov.
Paediatrics: nothing new will count for 2027. No open call finishes before Round 1 closes.
For next year.
2026 round figures · 2027 not yet published
Self-assessed and unofficial. What you claim is verified by the recruitment office, and your authorship, whether the panel judges the work related to the specialty, and whether you presented it yourself can all bring a claim down. This is not a threshold, a pass mark or a prediction that you will be shortlisted. Round 1 closes 19 November 2026.