Overall, the critical narrative should show the applicant’s: 

• preparation for working at the advanced practice level (see definition of advanced practice in the Framework (2017)) 
• ability to manage and exercise professional judgement in managing high levels of complexity, uncertainty and risk safely, effectively and in a person-centred way 
• critical reasoning, problem-solving, analytical skills.  
• ability to employ high level decision-making skills, using critical and/or creative thinking as appropriate to determine working hypothesis. 
• self-awareness about their practice, including:
  • the advanced level at which they operate 
  • scope of practice 
  • the scope and boundaries of decision-making 
  • the extent of professional autonomy and the parameters within which they work 
  • is managing these parameters to meet professional responsibilities, ensure accountability, and improve service delivery 
  • the population or patient groups whom they serve 
  • responsiveness to changing population, patient, service delivery and workforce needs 
• ability to reflect critically on:
  • actions, learning, professional development, and practice – and the impact of each on the patient pathway. 
  • meeting all professional responsibilities 
  • accountability for decisions and actions 
  • contribution to service delivery and its context(s) 
  • contribution to multi-disciplinary teams and to multi-agency working 
  • the evidence base underpinning practice 
  • ethical issues raised by an applicant’s practice and how they respond to and manage these, and how they influence practice in future 
• ability to synthesise evidence and critical reflections to demonstrate achievement of the capabilities in the four pillars, including through:
  • triangulating the supporting evidence  
  • providing a critical overview 
  • demonstrating the currency, authenticity, and validity of the supporting evidence 

The following points can affect the quality of the critical narrative and an applicant’s progression through the ePortfolio (supported) Route.

If the critical narrative:

• is too descriptive of learning activity and/or practice
• contains insufficient critical reflection
• does not reflect the characteristics of level 7 (Masters level) learning and writing
• has insufficient evidence to demonstrate how the applicant has developed their ability to manage complexity, uncertainty and risk in their practice and capacity for extending their sphere of influence, and negotiations and leadership
• is not clear about how learning has developed professional practice in ways that directly draw on their capabilities across the four pillars.
• does not include the reference number for the evidence cited, for example [CS1, REFL2]
• does not cover all the capabilities of the four pillars
• does not cover all the pillars of practice
• relies on the strength of the evidence provided for one pillar to compensate for deficiencies in another pillar
• is supported by a limited range of, or poor-quality evidence
• does not make clear why the evidence has been included, leaving those verifying the portfolio to guess
• does not include citations or references
• does not include a list of the evidence cited that follows the naming convention at its end

The critical narrative, case studies and reflective accounts should be written in line with the generic academic Master’s level (level 7) characteristics:

• a critical awareness, systematic understanding of current problems and/or new insights, at, or informed by, the forefront of the academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice 
• a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to own research or advanced scholarship 
• originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline 
• conceptual understanding that enables the individual to
  • to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline 
  • to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, propose new hypotheses 
• deal with complex issues – both systematically and creatively, make sound judgements in the absence of complete data, and communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences
• demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level
• continue to advance their knowledge and understanding, and to develop new skills to a high level

Drawn from Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2024) The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies(2nd edition)