From 1 November 2026, RCPCH changes its additional-attempt arrangements and extends examination attempt limits to DCH candidates in the UK and internationally. If you are planning a sitting, the immediate task is to establish which rules apply to your own examination history before deciding how to prepare.
The change should not turn revision into a race. Use the available feedback to identify what needs to improve, involve someone who can assess your progress and make the next sitting a considered decision. The College’s current regulations and its August 2026 policies are the starting point.
What changes for MRCPCH
The standard limit remains six attempts at each MRCPCH component. From November 2026, a candidate who has failed a component six times can be permitted one additional attempt after providing evidence of further educational experience. Candidates who have already taken seven or more attempts at a component are offered one final attempt through the additional-attempt procedure.
The date from which earlier attempts count depends on your history. The MRCPCH policy distinguishes relevant UK training attempts from July 2014 and other candidates’ attempts from September 2024. It also warns that leaving a UK training programme does not erase unsuccessful attempts made within it. Check the full MRCPCH policy rather than treating November as a universal reset.
What changes for DCH
The DCH policy introduces six attempts at each component for candidates worldwide. It counts unsuccessful attempts from 1 November 2026; attempts before that date do not contribute to this new count. It covers Foundation of Practice and DCH Clinical.
After six failures, an additional attempt requires evidence of further educational experience. The policy also explains that starting an examination counts as an attempt even if you do not complete it, while non-attendance does not. RCPCH states that it chose to apply attempt limits to DCH for consistency across its examinations; DCH itself is not regulated by the GMC. Read the DCH policy and FAQs.
If you have a complicated examination history, ask the appropriate College examinations team to confirm the position. Keep a record of sittings, components and outcomes so that the discussion is based on dates rather than memory.
Use feedback to define the problem
A result tells you whether the required standard was met. Your preparation plan needs a more detailed account of what made the paper or station difficult. Review available feedback alongside your own study and examination experience.
Separate at least three possibilities. You may lack knowledge in a topic, know the topic but struggle to apply it, or lose accuracy under time pressure. These can overlap, but they need different activities. Reading another chapter is unlikely to resolve every timing problem, while faster question completion will not repair a misconception you have not identified.
Write two or three priorities that you can discuss with a supervisor or suitable colleague. Avoid a plan made entirely of activity totals. Completing a large number of questions describes effort; explaining a previously difficult distinction gives you something more specific to review.
Turn a weak topic into a short learning cycle
Begin with a small set of questions on the area you find difficult. Attempt them without assistance and explain why you chose each answer. Then review the explanation and identify the point at which your reasoning diverged.
For a knowledge gap, return to an appropriate reference and make a concise account in your own words. For an application problem, compare two similar cases and identify the feature that changes the answer. For a timing problem, practise a limited timed set and review whether the errors came from pace, uncertainty or reading the stem.
Return to the topic later using different questions where available. Familiarity with a repeated item can mask uncertainty, so ask whether you can explain the principle without its original wording. Bring examples of persistent difficulty to a teaching discussion.
Keep written and clinical preparation connected
The iatroX DCH bank and the separate MRCPCH FOP, TAS and AKP banks in the exam catalogue can support focused written practice. Within supported sessions, use the Tutor to examine why a distractor appealed to you and which part of the explanation still needs work.
For a clinical component, add practice that exposes your consultation, examination and communication skills to feedback. A written answer cannot show everything about how you gather information, respond to another person or explain a plan. Choose the activity around the component you need to improve.
Agree what progress will look like
Before beginning another revision period, discuss what would count as improvement in each priority area. This does not need to be a prediction of an examination result. It should be something you and a supervisor or colleague can examine together.
For example, if you repeatedly confuse two presentations, agree to explain the distinction in a fresh case. If you tend to choose an investigation before defining the clinical problem, practise stating the problem first and justify the next step. If time pressure is the difficulty, review a timed set and identify where the time went rather than looking only at its final score.
Choose a review date early enough to change the plan. Bring examples of what has become clearer and what still causes difficulty. A useful review can result in more focused study, a different teaching activity or a decision to seek further support. It does not have to end with a booking.
Keep the evidence proportionate. A short record of the difficulty, the activity undertaken and the subsequent review is easier to discuss than a large collection of screenshots. Include unresolved problems rather than presenting every activity as successful.
For someone outside a formal training programme, decide who can provide meaningful feedback and help you interpret progress. That might require contacting the College about the appropriate person for a particular application. Do this before the final week of an application window, when there is little time to resolve uncertainty.
The purpose is to give the next preparation period a clear direction. Your chosen activities should make it possible to return to the original problem and explain what is different.
Make the next sitting a supported decision
The additional-attempt policies ask for educational evidence and appropriate sign-off. Buying a question bank, creating a CPD entry or following a self-written timetable does not itself secure permission for another attempt. Use the College’s application process and allow time for its review.
An iatroX learning record can help you organise activity and reflection for discussion. Record the gap, what you did, what you can now explain and what remains unresolved. Your supervisor or equivalent needs an honest picture of progress, including limitations.
Before booking, review your current attempt position, the evidence of improvement and any support or adjustments you need. A preparation plan becomes more useful when it ends with a reasoned decision about readiness, rather than simply the arrival of another examination date.
Frequently asked questions
Does everyone get six new MRCPCH attempts from November 2026?
No. The six-attempt framework already applies, and earlier attempts may count according to your training and examination history. November changes the additional-attempt arrangements. Check Appendix E and seek confirmation if your history crosses different categories.
Do DCH attempts before 1 November 2026 count towards the new limit?
The DCH policy says attempts before that date do not count towards the new six-attempt limit. It applies the count to both Foundation of Practice and DCH Clinical for candidates in the UK and internationally.
Will completing a question bank obtain permission for an additional attempt?
No. The College requires its additional-attempt process, supporting educational evidence and appropriate sign-off. Question practice can contribute to a preparation plan, but the College decides whether the application satisfies its requirements.
Sources
Build the next session around a specific weakness. Find your component in the iatroX exam catalogue and use focused questions to prepare for a useful progress discussion.