Your ePortfolio must include a diverse range of evidence to support your critical narrative and demonstrate that you meet the capabilities outlined in the Multi-professional framework for advanced practice in England (2017).

All evidence should reflect the key characteristics of advanced practice:

• A high level of autonomy
• Complex decision-making
• The ability to analyse and solve complex problems
• Providing innovative solutions

Evidence Guidelines

• Submit one or two high-quality pieces of evidence per capability
• Provide four to six different pieces of evidence per pillar, totalling 24 pieces of evidence
• A maximum of 35 different pieces of evidence can make up an ePortfolio. A single piece of evidence can demonstrate multiple capabilities
• One piece of evidence can have more than one attachment, but select the attachments carefully. Do not include more than five attachments in a single piece of evidence, as only one peer reviewer can confirm a piece of evidence at a time
• All evidence must be verified as accurate and genuine by either an external organisation or a qualified colleague via the Portal (see ‘Confirmation’ section)
• Each piece of evidence must be linked to at least one capability to allow the educational supervisor to see it

The ePortfolio submission must include a range of documented evidence to support the critical narrative and show how the applicant meets the capabilities in the Multi-professional framework for advanced practice in England (2017) (the Framework).

Evidence included in the ePortfolio must show the characteristics highlighted in the Framework: a high degree of autonomy; complex decision making; analysis and synthesis of complex problems; and providing innovative solutions.

Applicants should provide a maximum of one or two pieces of high-quality evidence for each capability and include four to six different pieces of evidence per pillar – that is 24 pieces of evidence in total (see ‘How much evidence’ below). A piece of evidence can be used with more than one capability and can include several attachments.

All evidence must be confirmed as accurate and genuine either by another organisation or through the portal by a colleague who meets the required standards (see ‘Confirmation’ below).

Type of evidence

Applicants should include a range of high-quality, individual pieces that directly relate to their personal activity and achievements. Evidence that must be included in the ePortfolio:

• Reflective case studies: Two critical reflective case studies (minimum 800 words each) on different presentations/situations demonstrating assessment and management of complexity and unpredictability
• Reflective accounts: Two critical reflective accounts (minimum 800 words each) on the other pillars of advanced practice
• Assessment of competence/clinical capability: A record of a directly observed assessment by an appropriate healthcare professional from a formal/informal workplace setting or education setting, or through (re)validation/accreditation by a professional body
• Job description and CV: Current advanced practitioner job description and current CV
• Colleague feedback: Two pieces of feedback from colleagues on the applicant’s practice, contribution to clinical practice, service delivery, service development, quality improvement, research at the advanced level, or the learning and professional development of others
• Patient/Service user feedback: Two pieces of feedback from patients/service users or carers on the applicant’s practice and contribution to clinical practice and service delivery

• Leadership skills: Examples include attendance at leadership courses, 360-degree feedback reports, self-assessment of leadership, peer review observation, and clinical supervision
• Team leadership episode: Summary account of a team leadership episode that demonstrates the applicant’s leadership skills. For example:
  • a critical incident analysis and reflection
  • initiation, involvement, implementation of business case and/or change proposal

• Education/Training delivery: Evidence of delivering education/training, either formal or informal setting, to trainees, students, patients/carers or staff

• Applying research in practice:
• For example:
  • evidence of knowledge translation activities in relation to national evidenced-based standards and guidelines
  • local policy research and development
  • identifying gaps in evidencecontributing to a research culture
  • participating in a research project
  • reflective reviews of research
• Audit and service Improvement: Evidence of significant involvement in:
• For example:
  • audits
  • service improvements
  • practice development, or quality improvement

Writing the case studies and critical reflective accounts

The critical reflective case studies, and critical reflective accounts should be:

• written in a level 7/Master’s style, supported with citations and references in line with the style used by the education provider

The critical reflective accounts:

• applicants can use a reflective model to help them write the critical reflective account. The Centre does not require that a particular model is used. Examples include Driscoll’s model of reflection (2007), Gibbs, Reflective Cycle (1998), Jasper ERA cycle (2013), Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (1984)
• applicants should discuss the use of a model with their educational supervisor

Plagiarism

• If an ePortfolio, including individual pieces of evidence, failure to recognise others’ contributions or explain how these have informed the content, the ePortfolio will not be progressed. This also applies to the use of generative artificial intelligence
• Generative artificial intelligence (AI) can be used as a source of inspiration and help create ideas, or as a source of information, or to help with planning and management. It cannot be used to write the critical narrative or evidence for an applicant. The ePortfolio must be the applicant’s own work

Confirming evidence

Purpose

Confirmation of evidence is a crucial part of safeguarding the robustness and rigour of the ePortfolio (supported) Route. It ensures that the evidence:

• relates to the practitioner’s own professional activity
• is an authentic record of the practitioner’s professional activity
• is a current record of the practitioner’s professional activity

Confirmation process

All pieces of evidence in the ePortfolio must be confirmed/authenticated either:

• by a peer reviewer through the Centre’s Portal, or
• by another organisation, such as a university, a professional body through a formal assessment process, or
• through an ‘editorial’ process, such as a published paper, conference proceeding or report

Peer confirmation through the Centre’s portal

• each piece of evidence can only be peer reviewed once, by one individual (peer reviewer)
• overall, applicants should usually have a minimum of two peer reviewers. Where this is not possible, applicants should inform their educational supervisor who in turn will let the Centre know. The ePortfolio will then be considered at a Centre’s Quality and Standardisation panel

Peer reviewers must:

• understand the purpose of the confirmation process and their responsibility
• agree to undertake the role
• be feel able to ‘defer’ a piece of evidence should they have any queries about the accuracy and voracity of the evidence
• defer a piece of evidence and record on the portal if they consider that there is a conflict of interest so that it can be managed appropriately (see below)

Criteria for being a peer reviewer:

• for evidence related to the clinical pillar, hold current registration with the relevant UK statutory regulator, as a healthcare professional
• have the relevant professional knowledge, skills and understanding to verify a submission
• have experience of training, assessment and development at advanced practice level
• ensure that any relationship with the applicant which could be considered to be a conflict of interest is declared on the Portal and communicated to the educational supervisor

Conflict of interest

A conflict of interest happens when it might be difficult to stay/or be seen to be completely objective due to competing interests or loyalties. For example:

• being in business with the applicant
• line managing the applicant
• is, or has had a personal relationship with the applicant
• is line managed by the applicant
• has supervised the applicant in the past two years

If a peer reviewer considers there is a potential or actual conflict of interest:

• the peer reviewer should ‘defer’ the piece of evidence and record the conflict in the ‘comments’ section and
• the applicant should discuss the conflict with the educational supervisor
• if the educational supervisor considers there is a conflict of interest, they should ask the applicant to use another peer reviewer, or if this is not possible, the educational supervisor should notify the Centre Team
• if the educational supervisor considers that there is no conflict of interest, they should advise the applicant to invite the original peer reviewer to ‘approve’ the evidence (if appropriate)
• the educational supervisor should record their decision on the Portal in the ‘initial review’ section

Communicating with a peer reviewer

Applicants need to:

• add the name and email address of the person they want to confirm their evidence to the ‘contacts list’ on the Portal
• confirm with the peer reviewer that the email has been added to the Portal is the one the peer reviewer will use in setting up their Portal account
• when ready, invite the peer reviewer to confirm their evidence, through the Portal.
• This invite will lock the evidence and mean that only the evidence number and title can be edited.

Peer reviewers need to:

• click on the link in the email sent to them from the Portal
• create or log into their account on the Portal using the same email address as the applicant has listed in their contacts list
• approve or defer the evidence

In ‘approving’ the evidence the peer is confirming that the evidence:

• relates to the practitioner’s own professional activity
• is an authentic record of the practitioner’s professional activity
• is a current record of the practitioner’s professional activity

Evidence that has already been authenticated

If a piece of evidence has already been authenticated by another organisation, such as a university, a professional body or is a published paper, conference proceeding or report, it does not need to be peer reviewed through the Portal.

The following types of evidence can be submitted onto the Portal and do not need to be peer reviewed through the Portal:

• abstracts from publication(s) in a peer review journal
• certificates confirming successful completion of, or attendance on modules or short courses accompanied by learning points and application into practice as a result
• certificates from recognised higher education providers or professional, statutory or regulatory bodies
• contribution to conference proceedings (e.g. presentation or poster)
• a short critical appraisal of a research article or similar exercise to demonstrate critical analysis and appraisal skills, as part of a university module
• employer appraisals
• online communications (e.g. blogs, tweets, posts and the suchlike)
• reports, papers which are publicly available

Selecting evidence, explaining why

Amount of evidence

Applicants must choose the best and most recent pieces of evidence to show the specific capabilities they map against. Selecting high quality evidence is a skill expected of an advanced level practitioner.

Applicants should provide:

• A maximum of one or two pieces of high-quality evidence should be provided for each capability
• One high quality piece of evidence can be used against more than one capability
• Applicants need to include a range and good balance of evidence
• If the same pieces or types of evidence are used too often, the applicant is unlikely to satisfy the capabilities and the ePortfolio will have gaps
• Applicants are advised to include four to six different pieces of evidence per pillar
• A maximum of 35 pieces of evidence overall; note one piece of evidence can have more than one attachment, but select attachments carefully. Do not include more than five attachments per piece of evidence

Too much evidence

If an applicant uploads more than the 35 pieces of evidence the educational supervisor is not required to read it and will return the ePortfolio to the applicant to reduce the amount of evidence.

One piece of evidence can include more than one attachment but select carefully as only one peer reviewer can confirm a piece of evidence. Do not include more than five attachments per piece of evidence.

Tools to support managing the amount of evidence:

Capability evidence matrix: the Portal creates a matrix for each applicant, which lists the evidence against each capability.

Digital submission checklist: before submitting the ePortfolio, all applicants must complete the checklist, confirming all the required evidence is present, meets requirements, and providing a link to each piece. More detail can be found in the ‘submission’ section of the Guidance.

Currency and age of evidence

Evidence should normally be:

• from the applicant’s current and recent advanced practice roles
• from relevant training and development
• from within the last five years

If the evidence is more than five years old, applicants must explain how they have used, kept up, and built on that learning in their recent work.

For instance, if someone completed a level 7 research methods course five years ago, they should detail how they have applied and improved that knowledge in their current tasks – for example participating in research, enhancing their practice, working on quality improvement projects, and reviewing research that relates to their job.

Evidence of name change

If an applicant is using evidence that was created under a different name, they must:

• provide evidence of that name change. For example, marriage certificate, decree nisi certificate, or deed poll
• upload the relevant document(s) to the Portal
• ensure the document clearly shows the previous name and the new name to establish the connection

Evidence from First Contact Practitioner training

Any applicants considering using evidence from First Contact Practitioner (FCP) training should not rely on this evidence alone to meet the four pillars in the Framework as:

• the First Contact Practice (FCP) Roadmap and the ePortfolio (supported) Route are separate processes with different expectations for evidence
• the FCP Roadmap was not designed to directly transition into the ePortfolio (supported) Route
• First Contact Practitioners work at a master’s level (QAA level 7) in their clinical pillar but have not reached an advanced level in all four pillars of practice required for Advanced Practice recognition

Applicants on the ePortfolio (supported) Route can draw on the evidence used in the FCP roadmap as a starting point, for example the case studies, but the evidence must be developed further to show a more detailed, in-depth and critical evaluation drawing on relevant published research/reports where appropriate.

Confidentiality/General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements

Applicants must not share any information protected by privacy rules like the Caldicott Principles or General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR).

Portfolios will not be accepted if they contain any patient information. The Centre has the right to inform the applicant’s employer, and other authorities should this occur.

Patient feedback:

• redact any patient information, or
• transcribe the information, but retain general information such as the name of the organisation/setting, or
• use anonymised quotes

Colleague feedback:

• if sharing information which is not publicly available, such as an email address, then applicants must seek permission from the individual
• complete the GDPR statement

Step by step portal guidance

Centre for Advancing Practice Portal