Menu
Spring 2023 Examinations – Publication of Results | |
---|---|
Results will be posted on the date and time specified for the following disciplines | |
Anatomical Pathology | May 30 – 12h EDT |
Anesthesiology | May 2 – 12h EDT |
Cardiac Surgery | June 26 – 12h EDT |
Cardiology Pediatric – Written | May 16 – 12h EDT |
Cardiology Pediatric – Applied | July 4 – 12h EDT |
Dermatology | June 16 – 12h EDT |
Diagnostic Radiology | June 9 – 12h EDT |
Emergency Medicine – Written | May 1 – 12h EDT |
Emergency Medicine – Applied | June 19 – 12h EDT |
General Internal Medicine | May 16 – 12h EDT |
General Pathology | May 30 – 12h EDT |
General Surgery – Written | April 19 – 12h EDT |
General Surgery – Applied | June 7 – 12h EDT |
Geriatric Medicine – Written | May 16 – 12h EDT |
Hematological Pathology | May 3 – 12h EDT |
Internal Medicine – Written | Mar 30 – 12h EDT |
Internal Medicine – Applied | May 18 – 12h EDT |
Medical Genetics and Genomics | June 2 – 12h EDT |
Medical Microbiology | June 1 – 12h EDT |
Neurology | June 13 – 12h EDT |
Neuropathology | May 8 – 12h EDT |
Neurosurgery | June 27 – 12h EDT |
Nuclear Medicine | May 9 – 12h EDT |
Obstetrics and Gynecology – Written | April 6 – 12h EDT |
Obstetrics and Gynecology – Applied | May 23 – 12h EDT |
Ophthalmology – Written | April 26 – 12h EDT |
Ophthalmology – Applied | June 22 – 12h EDT |
Orthopedic Surgery – Written | April 26 – 12h EDT |
Orthopedic Surgery – Applied | June 6 – 12h EDT |
Pediatrics – Written | Apr 13 – 12h EDT |
Pediatrics – Applied | June 21 – 12h EDT |
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation | June 15 – 12h EDT |
Plastic Surgery | May 5 – 12h EDT |
Psychiatry – Written | Mar 31 – 12h EDT |
Psychiatry – Applied | May 25 – 12h EDT |
Public Health and Preventive Medicine | May 31 – 12h EDT |
Radiation Oncology | May 10 – 12h EDT |
Respirology (adult) – Written | May 16 – 12h EDT |
Respirology (adult) – Applied | June 29 – 12h EDT |
Rheumatology (adult) – Written | April 24 – 12h EDT |
Rheumatology (adult) – Applied | June 28 – 12h EDT |
Vascular Surgery | April 27 – 12h EDT |
Please note: Candidates should not contact the chair or members of the exam board for comments or to discuss their performance at the exam.
Your results are posted on a secure, confidential server and can only be accessed using your unique identifier.
If you do not have or forgot your password:
To view or download:
All examination scores are subjected to multiple levels of verification and quality assurance prior to being reported to candidates. This ensures that each candidate’s performance is appropriately assessed, and their scores are accurately reported for all exam components (MCQ, SAQ, Practical, Oral/OSCE).
A rigorous exam development and quality review process is followed to ensure the validity and quality of the exam questions. The exam blueprint is developed to correspond to the training objectives of the specialty. The questions on the exams are developed to correspond to the exam blueprint for the specialty.
A quality assurance process ensures that the questions are relevant (correspond to the blueprint), clear and that the items are accurate and of high quality. This process involves three steps: In the development of the questions a panel of exam developers, consisting of recognized specialists reviews each question. Once the questions for the exam have been compiled an exam quality reviewer reviews all of the questions for clarity.
Following the exam, a psychometric analysis of the questions is conducted and items that do not meet psychometric standards are removed from the exam and the exam is rescored without those items. In addition, any items that have been flagged during the exam administration are reviewed and if these items are deemed to be defective for any reason they are removed from the exam.
The date of certification is the date when all conditions listed below are satisfied:
You will receive a letter confirming your date of certification only when all the above conditions have been met. This means that the date of the exam may not necessarily be the date of certification.
Please note that while the completion of the subspecialty exam through the Subspecialty Examination Affiliate Program (SEAP) does not result in Royal College certification, SEAP supports national standards for all subspecialists practicing in Canada. Those who choose to join as a Subspecialist Affiliate will receive an attestation suitable for framing, confirming successful completion of the exam in your subspecialty discipline.
If you are a Royal College-certified specialist, you have achieved the highest standard for specialty medical education in Canada. To commemorate this important milestone in your career, we invite you to join the Royal College.
To become a Fellow, you will need to:
Accept the membership invitation from the Royal College
Commit to ongoing professional development through the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program, and
Pay annual member dues
Fellowship allows you to use the designation FRCPC (Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada) or FRCSC (Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada), which is recognized by the public and the entire health community as proof that you have trained to the highest national standard.
You will also be able to leverage the Royal College’s Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program to help you manage your continued professional development.
As a Fellow, membership in the Royal College will help you advance your career, showcase your expertise, support your development and advance specialty medicine and specialty medical education across Canada and abroad.
Learn more about the benefits of Fellowship and how to apply.
If you fail the exam, you will receive a brief summary of your performance. The intent of this report is to indicate where your performance did not meet the standards set by the exam board. The report will provide very general comments and will not include details on specific questions.
Formal reviews of exams are conducted only on the basis of alleged significant procedural irregularities in the assessment process, not because of alleged errors in content.
The exclusion of errors in content applies to allegations of errors in either the questions and structure of the examination, or the evaluation and content of the responses provided by the candidate.
The review process is not a re-grading or re-scoring exercise. This scope of review is designed to act as a safeguard for the validity of the exam and assessment process. The distinction between content reviews and process reviews is of the utmost importance. Requests for reviews based on alleged errors in content will not be processed.
A request for a formal review will only be considered in the event of a procedural irregularity serious enough to materially affect the candidate's performance.
Examples of potential issues that do NOT constitute process irregularities include
Formal reviews of examinations are part of the evaluation and quality improvement system used by the Royal College to grant specialist certification. They provide a means to investigate the circumstances of the written, oral or other type of examination administered to one or several candidates, and to ascertain whether the process was carried out under conditions appropriate to the conduct of an examination as determined by the Discipline Specific Examination Boards and approved by the Examination Committee of the Royal College.
Formal reviews of examinations involve candidates, Royal College examiners, the Examination Committee, the Assessment Committee and the Office of Standards and Assessment in an effort to identify any significant irregularities in the conduct of the examination process and any procedural unfairness materially affecting one or several candidates.
Formal reviews are conducted only on the basis of alleged significant irregularities in the assessment process, not because of alleged errors in content. The review process is not a re-grading or re-scoring exercise. Requests for reviews based on alleged errors in content will not be processed. A request for a formal review will only be considered in the event of a procedural irregularity serious enough to negatively materially affect the candidate’s performance.
On occasion, deviations from the stated format or conduct of the examination may be unavoidable and irregularities may occur that do not result in any unfairness or significantly affect the performance of the candidates.
Formal review | Before submitting a request for a Formal Review, candidates must ensure that their concerns relate to one or more alleged irregularities in the evaluation process, not a content, grading or other non-process issue. Formal review requests and payment must be submitted within 30 days of the date appearing on the Summary of Performance. |
Written request to Executive Director of Standards and Assessment | The request must explain, completely and in detail, all of the circumstances surrounding the alleged process irregularity and its effect on the candidate’s performance. |
Decision by Executive Director of Standards and Assessment | The executive director of standards and assessment will, within 45 days of receipt of a complete request for a formal review, evaluate the request and conduct any enquiries, and provide a written decision to the candidate as to whether or not the grounds for a formal review alleged by the candidate are founded and, if so, what remedy should be accorded, if any. |
End of review | |
Review by panel | If a candidate disagrees with the decision of the executive director of standards and assessment the candidate may, within 15 days of the date appearing on the written decision, advise the office of the director of assessment, in writing, that they wish for the decision to be reviewed by a formal review panel. The candidate can choose either a paper review by panel or an oral review by panel. |
Paper review by panel | The formal review panel consisting of three members of the examination committee and/or the assessment committee shall be appointed. |
Decision by panel | Within 30 days of its deliberations, whether in the case of a paper review or oral hearing, the chair of the formal review panel shall issue in writing the Panel’s decision and any other relevant information or recommendation to the office of the executive director of standards and assessment. |
End of review | There is no provision for further review by the Royal College of the decisions of the formal review panel after a paper review or oral hearing as the decisions are considered final. |
Oral review by Panel | The formal review panel consisting of three members of the examination committee and/or the assessment committee shall be appointed. |
Decision by panel | Within 30 days of its deliberations, whether in the case of a paper review or oral hearing, the chair of the formal review panel shall issue in writing the Panel’s decision and any other relevant information or recommendation to the office of the director of assessment. |
End of Review | There is no provision for further review by the Royal College of the decisions of the formal review panel after a paper review or oral hearing as the decisions are considered final. |
Options | Price |
---|---|
Formal review by director | $750 |
Paper review by panel * | $1500 |
Oral hearing by panel* | $1750 |
A candidate wishing to request a formal review must notify the Office of the Executive Director of Standards and Assessment of the Royal College in writing to formalreviews@royalcollege.ca and include payment by attaching the credit card authorization form.
It is recommended that before electing for a formal review of an exam, the candidate should review the Policy & Procedures for the Formal Review of Examinations.
We recognize exams are a stressful experience and that we are in unprecedented times. The Royal College is committed to communicating with you in a respectful, professional and civil manner. Similarly, we ask the same courtesy is provided to our employees. Thank you!