Free GP portfolio tool: AI clinical case review generator

Describe the case in a few sentences: what the patient presented with, what you did, what happened. Then choose the RCGP capabilities the encounter demonstrates, or let the tool pick them for you. It returns a structured clinical case review across the relevant domains, which you edit and paste into your ePortfolio.

More than you think. Three or four sentences covering the presentation, your reasoning, what you did and what happened next will produce a far better draft than a one-line description. The tool can only reflect back what you give it, so a thin input gets you a generic entry that reads like every other generic entry.

You can select them yourself, or leave it to the tool. Our capability selector reads what you've written and picks the ones the encounter actually evidences, which is usually more accurate than guessing, particularly early in training when the framework is still unfamiliar.

If you'd rather choose your own, pick two or three the encounter genuinely demonstrates rather than tagging every capability you can loosely justify. A focused entry across three capabilities is stronger evidence than a thin entry spread across ten.

A good entry shows your reasoning, not just what happened. Panels are looking for what you were thinking, what you considered and ruled out, where you were uncertain, and what you'd do differently. A polished entry with no reflection scores worse than a rougher one that shows genuine learning. Use the draft for structure and put your own thinking into the reflective sections.

Yes, as a drafting aid, and many trainees do. What you submit has to be an accurate account of an encounter you were part of, and reflection that's genuinely yours. Generating an entry for a case that didn't happen, or submitting reflection you don't recognise as your own, is a probity issue. Use the draft as a structure and rewrite the reflective sections in your own words.

Our tool is built to avoid the usual tells. The output doesn't have the flat, even rhythm most generated text has, and it won't reach for the vocabulary that gives it away.

The bigger risk isn't the writing, it's the content. Any draft written from three sentences of input can only be generic, because generic is all you gave it. What marks an entry as yours is the specific detail: the thing that surprised you, the decision you're still not sure about, what you'd do differently. Put those in and it reads like you, because it is you.

So give it more to work with, then edit what comes back.

Don't enter patient-identifiable information. Names, dates of birth, NHS numbers and addresses should never go into the box. Write the case the way you'd write it for the ePortfolio itself, describing the patient by age, sex and presentation only.

You should. Every draft is a starting point. Check it against what actually happened, correct anything that doesn't match, and rewrite the reflection in your own words. The tool saves you the blank page, not the thinking.

Yes, as many as you like. There's no credit system and no cap.

It's built for clinical case reviews, but plenty of people use it for learning logs, significant events and leadership entries, and it holds up well. If there's an entry type you'd want a dedicated tool for, email us at hello@fourteenfisherman.com. We build what people ask for.

Yes. It's how most GP trainees first find us, and around one in four use it. Some of them later use our SCA preparation, and that's the part we charge for.

No, and trying to is how people burn out on the ePortfolio. Pick encounters where something happened: a diagnosis you nearly missed, a consultation that went badly, a decision you're still unsure about. One entry on a case that genuinely taught you something is worth five on straightforward presentations.

Log entries are the broad record of your learning across training, covering courses, tutorials, significant events and clinical encounters. A clinical case review is one type of log entry, focused on a single patient encounter and your reasoning through it. This tool drafts clinical case reviews.

Long enough to show your reasoning, short enough that someone actually reads it. Most good entries run a few hundred words. Length isn't what's assessed, depth of reflection is, and a short entry that admits genuine uncertainty beats a long one that narrates a consultation without ever saying what you were thinking.

Yes, though the detail fades fast. If you can still remember what you were thinking at the time and why you made the decisions you made, it's worth writing. If all you can recall is the outcome, the reflection tends to come out hollow. Jotting three or four lines on your phone at the time and writing it up properly later works better than either extreme.

Yes. ST1s and ST2s make up a large share of the people using it. The requirements differ by training year but the format of a clinical case review doesn't, and getting into the habit early means you aren't writing twenty entries the fortnight before ARCP.