A KFP score tells you how much credit you obtained, but not why you lost it. Review every selected and omitted option against the clinical task before deciding that you need more questions. The useful unit of analysis is the decision represented by an option, not simply the case's total score.
As checked on 13 September 2026, the RACGP's published format change removed short-answer questions from the 2025.2 KFP examination in favour of multiple-selection scenarios. Older advice about writing compact lists therefore needs translating into the response task candidates now face.
Check the rule before inventing a strategy
The RACGP delivery guidance, reviewed on 13 September 2026, distinguishes an incorrect answer from selecting more responses than requested. It describes no negative marking for incorrect answers within the requested response count, but a penalty for additional shaded responses. Do not reduce that to either "wrong answers are penalised" or "tick everything because there is no penalty".
Read the number of responses requested on each item. That instruction is part of the task, not a minor formatting detail. In practice, record an over-selection separately from a clinical disagreement so the two do not become one vague category called carelessness.
This article's worksheet is an educational review tool. It does not reproduce the College's scoring system and should not be used to calculate a predicted examination result.
An original option-selection drill
A fictional adult with established asthma attends a routine review because symptoms have become more frequent. There is no current acute exacerbation. The patient says the inhaler device is unfamiliar and that they sometimes miss prescribed maintenance treatment because they are unsure what it does. The task is deliberately narrow: select the two assessments that most directly investigate the treatment-use problems described.
| Option | What it would establish | Fits this task? |
|---|---|---|
| Ask the patient to demonstrate their usual inhaler technique | Whether they can use the actual device correctly | Yes |
| Explore how treatment is taken and the reasons for missed use | Whether understanding or practical barriers affect use | Yes |
| Order repeat diagnostic spirometry as the first response | Additional information about lung function | Not the treatment-use problem being asked about |
| Discuss trigger exposure as the only assessment | Possible environmental contributors | Relevant more broadly, but it does not resolve the stated device and use concerns |
| Change the prescription without checking either concern | A different regimen | Does not establish why the current treatment is not being used effectively |
This is an original teaching exercise, not an RACGP item or a complete asthma consultation. The Australian Asthma Handbook's treatment-adjustment guidance, checked on 13 September 2026, supports assessing adherence and inhaler technique, among other contributors, before stepping up treatment.
A good explanation is not merely "the first two are correct". It is "the question asks about treatment use, and these two assessments directly investigate the uncertainties supplied". Broader clinical relevance does not make every option an answer to this particular task.
Change the case so that correct technique and consistent use have already been established. Repeating the same pair would now fail to address the remaining uncertainty. The appropriate further assessment depends on the revised question, rather than on a fixed rule that technique and adherence must always be the selected answers.
Build an option-level review sheet
Use a fresh row for each plausible option, including the one you nearly chose. Do not reproduce a provider's protected wording in another application. Your own concise account of the decision is enough.
| Field | Example entry from the asthma exercise |
|---|---|
| Task in my words | Investigate the treatment-use problems described |
| Option's proposed action | Observe the patient using the usual inhaler |
| Stem support | The patient is unfamiliar with the device |
| Selection judgement | Directly tests a stated uncertainty |
| Tempting alternative | Investigate trigger exposure alone |
| Why it loses priority | Does not establish whether the device is being used correctly |
| Changed-case trigger | Correct technique has already been observed and the task asks about a different problem |
A wrong choice can arise because you missed a fact, misunderstood what the option would accomplish, or chose a reasonable action at the wrong point. Record the distinction. Otherwise, the next review session may teach the same factual material while leaving the actual decision error untouched.
Review omissions differently from additions
For an omitted correct option, ask what would have made you notice it. Was the clue present but underweighted? Did you stop after finding the first acceptable action? Were you answering the diagnosis when the question asked for the management priorities?
For an unnecessary selection, write the condition under which it would become appropriate. This is more useful than memorising that it was wrong. It also prevents the review note from becoming an unsafe general rule outside the original scenario.
For an over-selection, inspect your response process. Did you count before committing? Did you change a selection without removing the previous one? A content lecture will not fix a response-count error; a final count check might.
Compare course and question-bank roles
This comparison is published by iatroX and includes our platform. As published on 13 September 2026, GP Academy combines KFP multi-select questions and mocks with live or recorded teaching. Fellow Academy's AKT/KFP page, checked on the same date, describes purpose-built multi-select practice, topic guides and flashcards. Those are different combinations of teaching and practice, not interchangeable promises about examination outcomes.
Try an available sample and inspect the reason for a rejected option. Does the explanation identify what makes it less appropriate in this patient, or simply repeat the preferred answer? That is the feature this particular revision problem requires.
A candidate who cannot explain the underlying topic may benefit from structured teaching. A candidate who can explain it but keeps choosing too many plausible actions needs focused discrimination practice. A new subscription is useful only when it supplies the missing activity.
As described on the iatroX Tutor page, checked on 13 September 2026, tutoring begins with the attempted question and probes the reason behind the answer. The September 2026 learning offer also includes adaptive question practice and spaced repetition. Its role here is to challenge the reason for an answer and help identify a misconception. The worksheet above is an original article asset, not an advertised built-in KFP analytics feature.
Use the next attempt to test a correction
Choose one recurring error for the next session: missing an instruction, selecting an action without stem support, or failing to prioritise. State a concrete change before starting. Afterwards, check whether that behaviour improved on new cases, even when the total score barely moved.
Keep your main resource when it supplies suitable cases and explanations. Add teaching when the knowledge is thin, and use guided questioning when the reasoning is hard to articulate. The aim is a better selection process, not loyalty to one provider or a collection of competing dashboards.
Frequently asked questions
Is KFP review just about learning the correct list?
No, each option needs a reason tied to the clinical task. A remembered list can become misleading when the case or response instruction changes.
Does no negative marking mean I should select extra options?
No. RACGP's guidance checked on 13 September 2026 distinguishes incorrect selections within the requested count from additional responses, which attract an over-selection penalty.
Does the worksheet predict my KFP result?
No, it is a study aid for identifying decision errors. Official results depend on the College's assessment and scoring processes.