Portfolio builder
Build a Radiology portfolio against the published criteria
This builder uses the published 2027 Radiology portfolio categories and evidence requirements. For each domain, check what can score, what evidence would be too weak, and what realistic action could close a gap before the application deadline.
1. Commitment to specialty
2027 Domain 1 · double weighted
The 2027 framework double-weights this domain. Category A requires more than one meaningfully different significant exposure to a clinical Radiology department; B requires one. Significant exposure means at least three whole-day equivalents attached to the department. Category C is presenting at a Radiology course/conference and D is attendance.
- A taster or observership lasting at least three whole-day equivalents, confirmed by the department.
- Two genuinely different significant exposures for category A — for example a DGH taster plus a separate academic/elective placement, or tasters with materially different experiences.
- A dated letter or official university document stating the department, duration and your participation.
- A single afternoon or one-day visit described as a 'taster week'.
- Two almost identical tasters with no meaningful difference in experience, claimed as two separate exposures.
- A CV line, informal email or reflection without formal confirmation of the placement and duration.
- Arrange at least three whole-day equivalents if you do not yet have a qualifying exposure.
- If aiming for the top category, make the second exposure meaningfully different rather than duplicating the first.
- Before leaving the department, obtain a dated confirmation letter that states exactly how long you attended.
2. Leadership and management
2027 Domain 2 · minimum six months
For 2027, category A is a national Radiology leadership/management role. Category B includes a national healthcare role unrelated to Radiology or a local/regional Radiology role. All claimed roles must have lasted at least six months.
- A formal elected or appointed role lasting at least six months with responsibilities you can describe clearly.
- For a Radiology role, evidence of actual committee, society or service work rather than membership alone.
- Appointment confirmation plus evidence of attendance or a senior letter naming your role and major responsibilities.
- Being a member of a society without holding a leadership or managerial role.
- A role held for less than six months when the descriptor requires six months.
- A title with no evidence of what you actually did.
- If you are early enough in the cycle, look for a genuine local Radiology society, teaching-programme or departmental role rather than inventing a title.
- If six months cannot realistically be completed before submission, strengthen another domain instead of over-claiming.
- Keep evidence as you go: appointment email, meeting attendance and a final role-confirmation letter.
3. Teaching and training
2027 Domain 3
The 2027 top category is a formal postgraduate teaching qualification. Category B requires a major contribution to a national or international teaching programme. A formal programme should run for at least three months, and a major contribution means a leading or organising role rather than simply delivering one session.
- A completed postgraduate teaching qualification for the highest category.
- A documented leading/organising role in a multi-session national or international programme.
- For any teaching claim, contemporaneous feedback and documentation that names you as organiser or deliverer.
- One-off bedside or small-group teaching with no feedback, claimed as a major programme contribution.
- Attendance at a teaching course without evidence that it meets the published training-method descriptor.
- A programme you helped with informally but cannot evidence your role in.
- Build a repeatable programme rather than accumulating unrelated one-off sessions.
- If appropriate, make anatomy, imaging interpretation or safe requesting the theme so the activity also develops Radiology understanding.
- Collect feedback contemporaneously and have a third party collate or countersign it where required.
4. Audit and quality improvement
2027 Domain 4 · AuditLive is a practical starting point
In 2027, category A requires leading two or more Radiology audits/QI projects that changed practice or demonstrated that standards were already met; category B requires one. A completed audit and re-audit may count as two separate audits. Category C covers non-Radiology audits/QI with the same outcome requirement; D covers contributions without leading.
- You had a major role in conception, data collection, analysis and presentation rather than only helping with one stage.
- The project is genuinely Radiology-related: diagnostic imaging forms a major part of it.
- There is evidence of changed practice or that standards were already met — for example a closed-loop audit or a documented compliant baseline.
- You have the required supervisor/QI letter plus the presentation or project summary showing scope and impact.
- An audit without either demonstrated improvement or evidence that current practice already met the required standard.
- Collecting data for somebody else's project and describing yourself as the lead.
- A generic ward audit with only a peripheral imaging component, claimed as Radiology-specific.
- No signed supervisor evidence of your level of involvement.
- Start with RCR AuditLive: choose a current template with a clear standard and a project small enough to finish.
- Agree the intervention and re-measurement plan before collecting the first dataset so the project does not stall after presentation.
- Choose a focused project — referral quality, report communication, protocol compliance, radiation protection, contrast safety or another locally relevant AuditLive topic can be more finishable than a huge departmental project.
- Get the supervisor letter to state your role explicitly and retain the final presentation showing what changed.
5. Academic achievements
2027 Domain 5
In 2027, category A includes a postgraduate research degree or first-author peer-reviewed Radiology publication. Category B includes a non-first-author Radiology publication, first-author non-Radiology publication, first-author Radiology case report or first-author national/international Radiology presentation. Only completed achievements count.
- A peer-reviewed Radiology publication where the authorship position matches the category claimed.
- A first-author Radiology case report that has actually been accepted/published, not merely submitted.
- A peer-reviewed proffered Radiology poster/oral presentation with acceptance evidence and programme listing.
- Clear DOI/PMID/ORCID or meeting documentation that makes verification easy.
- A manuscript still under review, an abstract merely submitted, or a presentation not yet delivered at the application deadline.
- An intercalated undergraduate degree claimed as a postgraduate research degree.
- A poster at an event without a peer-review/proffered-paper process when the descriptor requires one.
- A publication where the imaging component is too peripheral to support a Radiology-specific claim.
- Prioritise outputs that can genuinely be completed before the deadline rather than starting an unrealistic large research project.
- A well-written Radiology case report or a completed audit/QI project submitted to an appropriate meeting may be more achievable than a new original research study.
- Keep acceptance letters, programmes and indexed citations as soon as they are available.
- Do not use low-quality or predatory publication routes simply to manufacture a portfolio item.
Before you upload: make the evidence verifier-proof
Evidence mechanics
For 2027, the declared category, exact evidence title and date are fixed once the Oriel application is submitted. Only completed achievements count. Upload one continuous PDF per domain (five total); two pieces can be accepted for category A in Commitment and Audit/QI. Assessors have 10 minutes to review all five domains.
- The first page makes it immediately obvious what you are claiming and where the proof is.
- Dates, role, duration, authorship and outcome all match the descriptor exactly.
- Files are concise, readable and contain the actual evidence rather than an explanatory essay.
- Large bundles of certificates with no clear link to the claimed descriptor.
- Evidence completed after the application deadline or different from the title/date entered on the application.
- Over-claiming a higher category and hoping the verifier will reinterpret it favourably.
- Audit each domain against the exact descriptor before submission and choose the highest category your evidence genuinely supports.
- Name files and order pages so a verifier can understand the claim quickly.
- Have another person check the evidence pack for missing dates, signatures, role descriptions and mismatches before submission.
Evidence pack
Make your Radiology evidence easy to verify
A strong achievement can still create problems if the evidence does not show the exact role, duration, date or outcome required by the descriptor. Give supervisors a concise draft they can edit rather than asking them to reconstruct the project months later.
Taster / Radiology exposure confirmation letter
Draft for supervisor review — only use if factually accurate
Use this when a department needs to confirm the duration and nature of your Radiology exposure. Put it on headed paper and ask the clinical supervisor, education lead or appropriate consultant to edit anything that is inaccurate before signing.
To whom it may concern, I confirm that Dr [FULL NAME] undertook a Clinical Radiology taster / observership in the [DEPARTMENT] at [HOSPITAL / TRUST] from [DATE] to [DATE], comprising [NUMBER] whole-day equivalents. During the placement, Dr [SURNAME] attended [e.g. diagnostic reporting sessions, CT/MRI, ultrasound, MDT, interventional / procedural sessions] and had the opportunity to discuss the role and training pathway of a clinical radiologist with members of the department. I confirm that this placement was completed as stated above. Signed: [CONSULTANT / EDUCATION LEAD] Name: [NAME] Role: [ROLE] GMC number: [IF APPROPRIATE] Date: [DATE]
Replace the placeholders with accurate details. Any signatory must verify the statements.
Audit / QI supervisor letter
Draft for supervisor review — tailor to the actual project
The 2027 guidance requires a signed letter stating your level of involvement for audit/QI claims, including the supervisor's name and GMC number (or national registration equivalent), date and completion/presentation details. State what you did and whether practice changed or already met the standard.
To whom it may concern, I supervised Dr [FULL NAME] in the audit / quality-improvement project '[PROJECT TITLE]' conducted in [DEPARTMENT / TRUST] between [DATES]. Dr [SURNAME] had a major role in [ONLY RETAIN WHAT IS TRUE: project conception / standard selection / data collection / analysis / intervention design / implementation / re-audit / presentation]. Their specific contribution included [BRIEF FACTUAL DESCRIPTION]. The project assessed [STANDARD / QUALITY METRIC]. Following [INTERVENTION], repeat measurement demonstrated [CHANGE IN PRACTICE / IMPROVED METRIC, WITH FIGURE IF APPROPRIATE]. I confirm that Dr [SURNAME]'s level of involvement is accurately described above. Signed: [CONSULTANT / QI SUPERVISOR] Name: [NAME] GMC number: [NUMBER] Date: [DATE]
Replace the placeholders with accurate details. Any signatory must verify the statements.
Teaching programme confirmation
Draft for supervisor / programme lead review
A useful teaching letter shows programme duration, audience and your actual organising/delivery role. It should not inflate occasional teaching into a programme-lead claim.
To whom it may concern, I confirm that Dr [FULL NAME] contributed to the [PROGRAMME NAME] teaching programme from [DATE] to [DATE]. The programme consisted of [NUMBER / FREQUENCY] sessions for [AUDIENCE]. Dr [SURNAME]'s role was [ORGANISING / LEADING / DELIVERING / DESIGNING — DELETE AS APPROPRIATE], specifically [BRIEF DESCRIPTION]. Feedback was collected [HOW] and Dr [SURNAME] used it to [BRIEF IMPROVEMENT IF TRUE]. I confirm that the above accurately reflects their contribution. Signed: [PROGRAMME LEAD / SUPERVISOR] Name and role: [DETAILS] Date: [DATE]
Replace the placeholders with accurate details. Any signatory must verify the statements.
Leadership / management role confirmation
Draft for chair / supervisor / organisation lead review
For roles where duration and level matter, the letter should state how you were appointed, the exact dates, the level of the organisation and what you were responsible for.
To whom it may concern, I confirm that Dr [FULL NAME] served as [ROLE TITLE] for [ORGANISATION / COMMITTEE] from [DATE] to [DATE]. This role operated at [LOCAL / REGIONAL / NATIONAL] level and [WAS / WAS NOT] specifically related to Radiology. Dr [SURNAME]'s responsibilities included [2–4 SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES]. During the role they contributed to / led [BRIEF EXAMPLE OF ACTIVITY OR OUTPUT]. I confirm that the role and duration stated above are accurate. Signed: [NAME] Role: [ROLE] Organisation: [ORGANISATION] Date: [DATE]
Replace the placeholders with accurate details. Any signatory must verify the statements.
Evidence-pack rules that prevent avoidable downgrades
Verifier-friendly evidence
Make the evidence readable without a detective exercise. Match the application title/date, use completed achievements only, show the exact duration and role, and place the decisive evidence near the front of the document. If the evidence genuinely supports only a lower category, select the lower category.
- One clear document per domain unless the published rules explicitly allow more.
- Headed, signed letters with dates and the required professional identifiers.
- Presentation slides, programmes, publications or feedback appended behind a short confirmation letter where needed.
- Screenshots, CV extracts and self-authored descriptions with no external confirmation.
- Letters that praise you but never state the duration, role or outcome relevant to the criterion.
- A large unstructured evidence bundle that forces the verifier to infer what is being claimed.
- Draft the factual letter yourself and ask the supervisor to correct it before signing.
- Run a final line-by-line check against the exact descriptor rather than against your memory of the rules.
- Keep the original files and correspondence in case you need to clarify evidence later.
From understanding to practice
Put this topic into an interview answer
Use Radiology portfolio & evidence for original prompts and an answer structure relevant to this topic.
Explore Radiology ST1 practiceExplore the Question bank and spoken practice coming at launch.Spoken practice is launching soon. Use the free questions and guides to start preparing now.
Sources