Two of the more widely used commercial resources for RACGP AKT preparation are PassGP, which publicly lists 2,595 AKT questions and 14 full mock examinations, and eMedici, which lists more than 2,800 AKT questions alongside detailed explanations and blueprinted mock papers. Both are substantial, genuinely useful resources. Neither one being fully completed is, by itself, meaningful evidence of readiness, and treating bank completion as a finish line is a common and avoidable misjudgement.
Why completing a bank does not equal being ready
A large question bank, worked through in full, guarantees exposure and repetition. It does not guarantee that performance on those specific, now-familiar questions will transfer to genuinely unseen material on exam day. Recognition of a stem, or even of the general shape of a question, can produce a comfortable score on a second or third pass through a bank without reflecting a candidate's actual reasoning ability against fresh clinical scenarios.
A freshness audit worth running honestly
Before deciding what to do next, it is worth answering four specific questions rather than relying on an overall bank completion percentage. Do the stems, on a re-read, feel genuinely recognisable, as opposed to simply familiar in general topic? Can the candidate explain, unprompted, why the closest distractor for a given question is specifically inferior to the correct answer, rather than only recalling which option was marked correct? Does accuracy hold up when questions are attempted in mixed, timed blocks rather than reviewed casually by topic? And is performance genuinely balanced across curriculum domains, or is a strong overall average concealing a specific, persistently weak area?
Three different starting positions, three different next steps
Candidates who have completed a large bank tend to fall into one of three positions, each calling for a different response. Low first-pass performance across a completed bank suggests the priority is not more volume but a return to foundational review in the weakest domains, ideally supported by targeted content study rather than further timed practice alone. Strong average performance with isolated pockets of weakness suggests the priority is concentrated remediation in those specific areas, rather than either starting an entirely new bank or simply repeating the one just completed. High performance that turns out, on honest reflection, to be substantially driven by question recognition rather than fresh reasoning suggests the real readiness picture is weaker than the headline score implies, and fresh, unseen material should become the immediate priority.
Why fresh questions should come before repeating a completed bank
Regardless of which of these positions a candidate is in, working through a meaningful volume of fresh iatroX Standard questions is generally the better next step before resetting or repeating either PassGP or eMedici. Fresh material gives a more honest current readiness picture than a repeat pass through familiar questions, and it is only once that honest picture is established that further decisions, whether to concentrate on specific weak domains through Adaptive Mode, or to move towards full mock simulations, can be made with confidence.
A four-week combined-resource timetable
A reasonable structure for the weeks following completion of a major bank looks like this. The first week is dedicated to fresh Standard Mode practice across the full blueprint, deliberately avoiding both PassGP and eMedici material already seen, to establish an honest current baseline. The second week uses Adaptive Mode, concentrated on whatever domains the fresh baseline identified as weakest. The third week combines continued Adaptive Mode with the reintroduction of Spaced Repetition, specifically for concepts that were understood correctly during the original bank work but may have since faded from memory. The fourth week shifts towards timed, full-length mixed blocks, building towards genuine exam-condition simulation, treating the final days as rehearsal rather than an opportunity for further new content.
Why another full bank reset is rarely the right automatic next step
It is worth explicitly resisting the instinct, common after a disappointing readiness check, to simply purchase or reset an entirely new large bank and start again from the beginning. This is rarely the most efficient use of the remaining preparation time. A targeted combination of fresh questions, adaptive remediation and spaced review of previously covered material is generally more effective than starting an additional large bank from scratch, particularly for candidates whose remaining preparation window is measured in weeks rather than months.
The cost of resource-switching that rarely gets accounted for
There is a real, often underestimated cost to switching between question banks that goes beyond the subscription fee. Every new bank has its own tagging structure, its own house style for stem length and phrasing, and its own quirks in how explanations are written. Time spent orienting to a new resource's structure and conventions is time not spent actually closing knowledge gaps, and candidates who cycle through three or four different banks in the final months before an exam often report feeling busier without feeling meaningfully more prepared. This is not an argument against ever using more than one resource; PassGP and eMedici are both genuinely strong, and using both, deliberately and for distinct purposes, is a reasonable strategy. It is an argument against switching primarily because progress has stalled and a new resource feels like it might solve a problem that a diagnostic process, applied to the current resource's results, would more directly address.
What genuinely justifies adding a second commercial bank
A second bank is worth its cost specifically when it serves a purpose the first bank cannot: distinctly different mock-exam structures for genuine full-length simulation practice, a meaningfully larger question pool once the first bank's material has become too familiar to provide honest diagnostic value, or specific coverage of a curriculum area the first bank handles thinly. Adding a second bank simply because the first one "hasn't worked" without first running a proper diagnostic on why is usually treating a symptom rather than the underlying cause.