For FFICM written preparation, a useful alternative to Intensive Anaesthesia or BMJ must add something beyond another set of critical-care questions. The missing service may be a clearer mechanism, better practice in interpreting information or more targeted help after an error. Define that before buying.
This article is published by iatroX and includes its written learning pathway. Public product information was checked on 19 September 2026. It does not imply that a written bank replaces other assessment components or practical training.
Compare the relevant written product
Intensive Anaesthesia describes question-based anaesthesia and intensive-care preparation, including FFICM material. BMJ OnExamination is another examination-resource provider to inspect for the relevant package.
Check the intended examination, access duration and explanatory support. A useful resource for a neighbouring anaesthesia examination is not automatically a complete FFICM preparation product, even where the science overlaps.
The Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine remains the reference for training and assessment requirements. Independent resources can support preparation but should not be used to infer the official format or replace required clinical experience.
Find out what is making the question difficult
Critical-care questions can combine several pieces of information. The learner may struggle because a concept is unfamiliar, because they have weighted the evidence poorly or because they have selected a reasonable action at the wrong stage.
Those are different errors. An unfamiliar mechanism may need structured teaching. An interpretation error may need a carefully annotated example. A sequencing error may need a discussion of what the question is asking now, rather than what might be appropriate later.
For an original educational example, imagine a fictional learner who focuses on one abnormal measurement while overlooking the wider pattern. Their revision note should not simply name the correct diagnosis. It should identify why the isolated measurement was insufficient and which contextual information changed the interpretation.
Inspect the explanation before the question count
A sample should let you judge whether the rationale addresses plausible alternatives and makes its assumptions visible. A confident paragraph that does not explain the decision may be less useful than a shorter, well-structured comparison.
Where a question uses a graph, table or investigation, inspect the material actually available. Do not infer comprehensive visual coverage from a broad subject label. Supplement with appropriate teaching when a particular interpretation skill is not adequately supported by the bank.
This is a proposed evaluation method. We have not run a controlled comparison of the named products and do not claim an accuracy ranking.
Keep review proportionate to the problem
Not every wrong answer needs a long discussion. A straightforward forgotten fact may need a concise correction and later retrieval. A repeated misconception deserves more attention because it can affect several different questions.
At the end of a review session, identify one action for each persistent error. That might be deriving a physiological relationship, explaining a result in plain language or practising a changed case. Avoid turning every explanation into a lengthy note that will not be revisited.
A second bank can supply useful unfamiliar practice, but it should not create a second full completion target unless the available time supports it. The cost in attention can exceed the subscription price.
When iatroX is a useful alternative
The potential value is linking an attempted written question with targeted reasoning support and a realistic study plan. It is not access to a hypothetical FFICM simulation track or to unrelated examinations. Check the actual catalogue rather than inferring a feature from the platform's overall breadth.
Professional learning records are also a separate matter. A CPD tool can help document learning, but its inclusion does not establish accredited CME or replace examination requirements.
The verdict by candidate
Choose Intensive Anaesthesia or BMJ when the relevant written package and explanations work well for you. Add focused teaching when the underlying science is the gap. Consider iatroX when repeated errors benefit from guided follow-up and planned revisiting. Keep supervised clinical and practical preparation alongside the written work rather than asking one resource to perform every role.
Access and the cost of adding support
For FFICM written preparation, iatroX's September 2026 product brief describes adaptive questions, spaced review and a Socratic Tutor that works from an attempted answer. The Tutor asks targeted follow-ups to explore the learner's misconception; it is a learning design, not proof that every generated response is correct.
The free-question sample offers up to twenty questions for the selected examination, subject to availability, without an account or card. Full FFICM written preparation access and ongoing Tutor use are paid; the separate introductory Tutor session requires a free account.
The UK price published on 19 September 2026 is £99 paid upfront annually, equivalent to £8.25 a month billed annually, or £29 monthly. Paid question banks, Socratic Tutor, the study planner, simulations and CPD tools are included together, not sold as separate simulation or CPD add-ons.
Frequently asked questions
Does a written FFICM bank cover every assessment task?
No. Check the official requirements and arrange appropriate preparation for other components and practical skills.
Should I discuss every incorrect answer with a tutor?
No. Use deeper discussion for persistent misconceptions; a concise correction may be enough for a simple knowledge gap.
Does CPD access mean formally accredited CME is included?
Not necessarily. iatroX learning records should be kept distinct from a claim of formal CME accreditation.