Kaizen and risr/advance are not two competing RCPCH portfolios to choose between. The College describes risr/advance as the platform formerly known as Kaizen. For a trainee revising MRCPCH, the useful task is to connect identified learning needs with Progress+ opportunities and genuine evidence, rather than attach curriculum labels to question-bank percentages.
The naming clarification comes from the RCPCH ePortfolio guidance, checked on 13 September 2026. It should not be read as an announcement that every trainee needs to migrate accounts now. Follow the College's access guidance and local training arrangements.
Begin with the capability, not the folder
An examination topic and a curriculum capability can overlap without being interchangeable. A question may test what a result means. Clinical development may also require gathering reliable information, explaining uncertainty, working with others and adapting the approach to the child and family.
Read the relevant Progress+ wording for your stage before selecting evidence. Ask what an observer would need to see or discuss to judge the aspect you are claiming. Then look for a suitable real opportunity, rather than starting with an available document and searching for as many tags as possible.
The RCPCH guidance provides resources for curriculum tagging, reports, development logs and planning. Those functions help organise evidence; the justification still needs to come from the actual learning or performance. An apparently empty area may be a recording issue, a missing opportunity or a genuine development need.
A fictional gap with more than one component
Consider an original scenario involving a trainee who answers developmental questions accurately but notices uncertainty when discussing concerns with a family. The trainee can recall relevant concepts, yet their explanations become a long sequence of labels. They have not established what the parent is worried about or what the child can contribute.
The learning need should not be reduced to "more developmental questions". There is a knowledge strand, a communication strand and a need for appropriate clinical observation. Those strands can be planned together without claiming that success in one proves success in the others.
For private preparation, the trainee could practise explaining a concept using a fictional case and identify where jargon obscures the point. For workplace development, they would agree a suitable supervised opportunity. The eventual portfolio entry should be based on the encounter that actually occurred, not a polished version of the original exercise.
A capability-to-opportunity worksheet
Use this proposed worksheet to prepare a supervisor discussion. It is not an official Progress+ assessment or an automatic mapping tool.
| Planning question | Useful answer | Evidence boundary |
|---|---|---|
| What specific aspect needs development? | Explaining a concern while establishing the family's understanding | Not a claim that all communication is weak |
| What prompted the concern? | A genuine observation, feedback point or clearly labelled study difficulty | Keep simulation and workplace triggers distinguishable |
| Which curriculum wording is relevant? | The applicable capability at the trainee's stage | Verify the wording rather than paraphrasing from memory |
| What can be prepared independently? | Review concepts and rehearse an explanation using original material | Preparation is not observed clinical performance |
| What opportunity is needed? | A suitable supervised encounter or discussion | Arrange it appropriately; do not invent a completed event |
| What will demonstrate learning? | Specific feedback and the trainee's analysis of what changed | Avoid unsupported claims of improved patient outcomes |
| What remains open? | A further need, uncertainty or missing opportunity | An incomplete plan can be recorded honestly |
Keep the map selective. One well-explained link is more informative than several unexplained ones. Where the case involves teamwork, say what the trainee did and learned; do not use another professional's contribution as evidence of the trainee's own performance.
Read the current AI guidance before drafting
RCPCH's responsible-use guidance, updated on 15 June 2026 and checked on 13 September 2026, allows AI to support planning and clarity while requiring authentic experience and reflection. It says ePortfolio users need not declare AI use provided they meet the underlying principles. That position should not be generalised to other colleges or local policies.
The same guidance draws a firmer boundary around multi-source feedback: feedback and self-reflection within MSF should not be generated by AI. Do not ask a tool to invent a colleague's judgement, create a patient encounter or turn a private practice exercise into a clinical account.
A useful editing question is whether the trainee could explain the entry in conversation. If a sentence describes an insight they did not have, an event they did not attend or an outcome they did not observe, remove it. Clear writing helps a reader understand evidence; it cannot make absent evidence real.
Put MRCPCH revision in its proper place
This article is published by iatroX and includes its educational tools alongside the official RCPCH portfolio. In the September 2026 iatroX product description, MRCPCH question practice and the Socratic Tutor can help explore a misconception and plan further learning. They do not assess the full range of Progress+ capabilities.
For the fictional trainee, targeted questions may establish whether the underlying concept is understood. Tutor discussion may expose why an explanation becomes confused. A real supervised interaction remains a different activity and should be planned and recorded separately.
The iatroX CPD workflow, checked on 13 September 2026, describes a learner-reviewed draft and PDF export. It does not establish a verified risr/advance integration or automatic acceptance of a curriculum mapping. A learning record may be useful supporting material where appropriate, but it cannot substitute for required clinical evidence.
The UK all-access price published on that date is £99 upfront for a year, equivalent to £8.25 a month billed annually, or £29 monthly. Paid banks, Tutor, study planning, simulations and CPD tools are bundled. Ask-iatroX and free question access remain genuinely free. The purchasing question is whether the learning tools address the particular gap, not whether another subscription will make the portfolio look fuller.
Check the evidence before the review
Before meeting the supervisor, read the selected entries as a connected account. Is the original need clear? Can the reader distinguish preparation from practice and feedback? Have future actions been written as if already completed? Are any links supported only by a topic name rather than the trainee's contribution?
An honest review may conclude that the knowledge gap is resolved while an observational opportunity is still needed. That is a useful result. It directs the next placement activity and prevents repeated private study from being mistaken for broader progression.
Use the official portfolio for the training record, the supervisor for educational judgement and supplementary resources for focused preparation. Each is more useful when it is not asked to prove something outside its scope.
Frequently asked questions
Is Kaizen a different RCPCH portfolio from risr/advance?
RCPCH describes risr/advance as the platform formerly known as Kaizen. Use the current College access guidance rather than assuming the terminology means a new personal migration is required.
Can strong MRCPCH results replace evidence of a Progress+ capability?
Not where the capability requires performance or evidence beyond the examination. Discuss suitable learning opportunities and assessments with your supervisor.
Can AI write my multi-source feedback response?
The RCPCH guidance updated in June 2026 says that MSF feedback and self-reflection should not be generated by AI. Ordinary spelling or grammar assistance is distinguished from generating the substance of feedback.