Plagiarism, Fraud, Code of Conduct & AI
Because honesty is not just a nice quality in a doctor — it is a professional requirement, a GMC expectation, and the thing that keeps your licence intact. (No pressure.)
📥 Downloads
Handouts, summaries, and teaching extras — ready when you are.
🌐 Web Resources
A hand-picked mix of official guidance and real-world GP training resources. Because sometimes the best pearls are not hiding in the official documents.
⚡ One-Minute Recall — The Essentials
- Plagiarism = presenting someone else's work, ideas, or words as your own. This includes text, data, and AI-generated content.
- The FourteenFish ePortfolio Code of Conduct applies to everyone: trainees, trainers, clinical supervisors, educational supervisors, deanery staff, and ARCP panel members.
- Fraudulent misuse of the ePortfolio is an extremely serious offence — not a grey area.
- Penalties can include GMC referral, NHS Fraud Unit involvement, Police investigation, criminal record, and removal from the GPST programme.
- 🆕 Using AI (ChatGPT, etc.) to write your learning log or reflections without acknowledgement is now considered a form of academic misconduct.
- The vast majority of trainees never have a problem. This page exists for the small minority — and to help everyone understand exactly where the lines are.
- Even unintentional plagiarism can have serious consequences. Ignorance of the rules is not a defence.
🎯 Why This Matters in GP Training
Let's be clear about something upfront: the overwhelming majority of GP trainees, trainers, and supervisors are entirely honest. This page does not exist because everyone is cheating. It exists because the consequences of misconduct are so severe — and some of the rules are so poorly understood — that every person using the FourteenFish ePortfolio deserves a plain-English guide.
- Unintentional plagiarism is still plagiarism — "I didn't mean to" is not a defence
- AI tools make it easier than ever to accidentally cross lines
- A GMC referral can derail a career even before it has started
- Understanding the rules protects you from making costly mistakes under pressure
- Supervisors who falsify or fabricate ePortfolio entries are also subject to the Code of Conduct
- Trainers have a duty to report concerns — passive silence can itself be a problem
- Understanding the spectrum helps trainers distinguish genuine mistakes from deliberate fraud
- Good teaching about this topic prevents problems before they arise
A Special Note for International Medical Graduates (IMGs)
IMGs make up approximately one quarter of all doctors registered with the GMC. They face specific challenges around plagiarism that deserve direct acknowledgment — not as a criticism, but as practical guidance.
- ▸Different academic norms: In some educational systems, reproducing respected sources verbatim is considered a mark of respect, not misconduct. UK standards require original attribution at all times.
- ▸Reflective writing as a new genre: The expectation that a professional document should contain personal feelings, uncertainties, and admissions of not knowing is counterintuitive in cultures where professional writing projects confidence and authority.
- ▸Language barriers: When English is not a first language, trainees may use phrases directly from guidelines or examples rather than paraphrasing — inadvertently creating plagiarism.
- ▸WPBA unfamiliarity: The entire WPBA framework — including what constitutes misconduct — may be unfamiliar at the start of training, and mandatory dedicated induction is not always provided.
❌ You are NOT assessed on:
- Perfect knowledge reproduction
- How well you can recall guidelines
- Producing "correct" textbook answers
✅ You ARE assessed on:
- Your thinking and reasoning process
- Your honest reflection on real experiences
- Your professional judgement and growth
Protective measure: Always write your learning log entry in your own voice, about your own patient encounter, immediately after the event, before reading around the topic. This preserves authentic personal voice from the outset.
"This is normal where I trained" is not a recognised defence under the Code of Conduct. The rules apply equally to all trainees.
⚖️ The Legal and Regulatory Reality
This landmark case established that proven dishonesty ordinarily warrants erasure from the Medical Register — even in the case of a one-off instance. There is no minimum threshold of dishonesty that is considered acceptable. A single act, once proven, is sufficient.
This principle is now applied routinely at Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) hearings involving doctors charged with plagiarism or fabrication.
In one documented MPT case, a doctor was found to have 52% similarity in one section of his thesis and 86% in another when compared against other sources. He argued ignorance of what "plagiarise" meant.
The MPT was particularly concerned that had the copying gone unnoticed, it would have constituted ongoing deception. The ignorance defence failed.
🔗 The Revalidation Chain
Misconduct identified through the WPBA process is regarded by the RCGP as a Significant Event and will be considered under Trainee Revalidation processes with potential referral to the GMC. This means plagiarism discovered during ST1 can follow a trainee through their entire career — it does not disappear when training ends.
📖 What Is Plagiarism?
Plagiarism is the act of presenting another person's ideas, words, data, or creative work as if they were your own — without acknowledgement of the original source. In medical training, it extends beyond copying essays. It applies to everything you submit as evidence of your own learning and professional development.
"Presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement."
Covers all published and unpublished material — in print, digital, or AI-generated form — and explicitly includes re-using your own prior work without citation.
"The use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source."
In medicine, plagiarism is a form of professional misconduct — frequently accompanied by copyright infringement, a separate legal matter.
🔎 The Five Types of Plagiarism — Know Each One
Trainees most commonly face allegations of the subtle types — not just blatant copying. Understanding all five is essential.
1. Direct (Verbatim) Plagiarism — the most commonly prosecuted at MPT
Copying and pasting another person's words exactly, word-for-word, into your own work without quotation marks or attribution.
2. Mosaic Plagiarism — the subtle one that catches trainees off-guard
Mixing another person's ideas with your own words, copying and pasting in a "patchy" manner without full attribution. In a portfolio context, this looks like a reflective entry that paraphrases NICE guidance or a textbook passage without acknowledgment — even though no exact sentence is copied.
3. Accidental Plagiarism — unintentional, but still a GMC matter
Occurring through incorrect or missing citations, forgetting to use quotation marks, or inadvertently using similar phrasing to source material.
4. Self-Plagiarism — reusing your own previous work
Reusing your own previously written work without citation. In GP training this includes recycling a learning log entry from a previous placement, resubmitting an essay written for another purpose, or copying your own PDP entries between training years.
The RCGP WPBA Code of Conduct explicitly lists "plagiarism of entries" in the Personal Development Plan as unacceptable conduct. Each entry must reflect a unique clinical encounter and fresh learning.
5. AI-Generated Plagiarism — the most contemporary risk
Submitting content generated by AI tools (such as ChatGPT) and presenting it as your own original work and reflection. The RCGP has been explicit: generative AI "should not be used to generate reflections without real patient experience."
ARCP panels and educational supervisors are now specifically instructed to explore Clinical Case Review (CCR) entries where there are concerns about the authenticity of the underlying case.
See the dedicated AI & Your Portfolio section for the RCGP's full current guidance.
In GP Training, This Applies To:
| What You Submit | What Counts as Plagiarism |
|---|---|
| 📝 Learning log entries | Copying from another trainee's log, using AI-generated text without disclosure, copying from websites without attribution |
| 📊 Audits and QI projects | Presenting another person's audit as your own, fabricating data, using previously submitted work without declaring it |
| 📋 Personal Development Plans (PDPs) | Copying PDPs from colleagues, using generic templates and presenting them as personal reflection |
| 📄 Clinical supervisor / educator reports | A supervisor writing an entry and presenting it as the trainee's own work |
| 🎓 Certificates and OOH evidence | Claiming sessions or modules you did not actually complete |
| 📱 Assessment tool responses | Having someone else complete your assessments (MSF, PSQ, COT, CbD) |
⚖️ Plagiarism vs Copyright — an important distinction trainees often confuse
These are related but distinct concepts. Understanding the difference matters because the consequences come from different systems.
| Feature | Plagiarism | Copyright Infringement |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Academic / professional misconduct | Legal offence |
| Who is harmed | The original author | The copyright holder (may differ from author) |
| Attribution | Full attribution prevents plagiarism | Attribution alone does not excuse copyright infringement |
| Self-plagiarism | Possible — reusing your own work without citation | Not possible if you own the copyright |
| Consequences | GMC / deanery proceedings | Civil or criminal law |
⚠️ Real-World GP Training Examples — What Trainees Often Miss
The situations below are the ones that actually catch trainees out. Most of these are not obvious at first glance — which is exactly why they need their own section.
🚩 High-Risk Behaviours Trainees Commonly Miss
1. Copy-pasting clinical knowledge into a reflection
You find a clear explanation of a clinical topic on NICE CKS or GPNotebook and paste it — perhaps lightly edited — into your learning log as part of your "learning points."
"According to NICE, hypertension is defined as a clinic blood pressure of 140/90 mmHg or higher on two or more occasions..."
Even if factually correct — this is copied wording, not your reflection.
"I realised I had been using the 140/90 threshold as if it were a single definitive rule — but after this consultation, I revisited the NICE guidance and understood more clearly why stage and risk matter as much as the number itself..."
Your thinking. Your experience. Referenced without copying.
2. Reusing your own previous entries (self-plagiarism)
You wrote a good learning log entry in your last post. You copy it into your current post with minor edits — perhaps changing the specialty or the patient's presenting complaint. This is self-plagiarism.
The FourteenFish ePortfolio is designed to demonstrate ongoing, current learning. Recycled entries misrepresent your progression to ARCP panels and Educational Supervisors.
3. Sharing entries with another trainee (collusion)
You help a struggling colleague by sharing your learning log entry so they can "see how it's done" — and they adapt it and submit it. Both of you are now at risk.
This is collusion — even if the intention was kind and supportive. Both trainees may face consequences.
4. Using AI tools incorrectly
Copying ChatGPT output directly into your ePortfolio entry is treated as plagiarism for three distinct reasons:
- It is not your thinking — it represents no real learning
- It is not reflective practice — the fundamental purpose of the learning log
- It is potentially misconduct under the FourteenFish Code of Conduct
See the dedicated AI & Your Portfolio section for full guidance.
5. "Template overuse" — polished but generic entries
You find an excellent reflection template online and use the same structure, similar phrases, and near-identical wording across multiple entries — just with different clinical details swapped in.
This pattern raises a specific kind of suspicion that is different from outright copying:
- "This doesn't sound like this trainee"
- "This is too polished and too generic for someone at this stage"
- "There's no uncertainty, no struggle, no real learning here"
📝 BAD vs GOOD Reflection — Side by Side
This is the single most practical thing this section can show you. Read both. The difference is not about length — it is about the presence of genuine thinking.
"The patient presented with chest pain. I took a full history and examined them appropriately. I used a systematic approach and formulated a differential diagnosis. I learnt the importance of thorough assessment and safety-netting."
- No personal voice — could have been written by anyone
- Generic language — "systematic approach", "thorough assessment"
- No uncertainty, no struggle, no real learning moment described
- No specific detail — what actually happened? What changed?
- Reads like a template with a clinical topic dropped in
"Initially, I focused on ruling out cardiac causes — I was so focused on not missing an ACS that I missed the patient's actual concern. When I finally paused and asked what they were most worried about, they disclosed a fear related to a recent family bereavement. That completely changed the direction of the consultation. I realised I had been managing my anxiety about serious diagnoses rather than genuinely listening."
- Personal voice — clearly this trainee's experience
- Real uncertainty and honest self-awareness
- Specific clinical detail — this actually happened
- Identifies a genuine learning moment with impact
- Cannot be replicated or plagiarised — it is unique
🧠 The Core Principle
Plagiarism is not just about copying facts. It is about losing your voice. And in GP training, your voice — your thinking, your uncertainty, your growth — is exactly what is being assessed.
🚩 Red Flag Scenarios — When Plagiarism Risk Is Highest
These are the specific situations where plagiarism — whether intentional or accidental — is most likely to occur. Recognising them in advance is the most effective form of prevention.
⏰ ARCP Time Pressure
- Bulk-completing multiple entries close to an ARCP deadline
- The single most common trigger for recycled or AI-generated entries
- Panels notice sudden volume spikes near deadlines
📰 Using a Published Case as Your Own
- Incorporating details from a published case report or journal article into a learning log as if it were your personal clinical encounter
- Particularly risky because the detail is convincing — but the case isn't yours
📋 Copying a Colleague's Entry as a "Template"
- Even if both trainees agree, this is plagiarism and sharing of work
- Both trainees are at risk — not just the one who copied
🏥 Writing About a Case Without Being Present
- Fabricating or embellishing clinical details within a learning log
- Using a case described to you by a colleague as if you saw the patient yourself
🕐 OOH Session Documentation
- Falsely recording OOH sessions for pay purposes — this is fraud, not just plagiarism
- Falls outside education misconduct procedures and into criminal law
💰 Using an Essay-Writing Service
- Submitting work produced by another person for payment constitutes fraud
- Investigated and prosecuted at MPT level — not treated as academic misconduct
📊 The Plagiarism Spectrum
Not all plagiarism is identical. It exists on a spectrum — from inadvertent errors to deliberate fraud. Understanding where things fall helps you recognise risks before they become problems.
Poor referencing, paraphrasing too closely
Failing to cite; copy-paste without attribution
Knowingly copying another's work
Fabricating data or assessments
Fraud, impersonation, false pay claims
Spectrum in Detail
1️⃣ Unintentional / Inadvertent Plagiarism
This includes poor paraphrasing (rewording too closely without changing the structure of ideas), forgetting to include a reference, or not realising that an idea you have absorbed counts as someone else's intellectual property.
Examples: Copying a sentence from a guideline into your learning log without quotation marks or attribution. Writing a reflection where your "own analysis" closely mirrors an article you recently read, without acknowledgment.
Advice: When in doubt, cite the source. It is always safer to over-reference than to under-reference in educational submissions.
2️⃣ Collusion
Collusion is when two or more people work together on a submission that is supposed to represent individual effort — and both present the shared work as entirely their own.
Examples in GP training: Two trainees sharing their learning log entries and submitting near-identical reflections. Asking a colleague to help write your PDP and presenting it as your own.
Note: Discussing your cases with colleagues is entirely fine and encouraged. The problem arises when the written submission itself is shared or jointly produced without disclosure.
3️⃣ Self-Plagiarism
Self-plagiarism means submitting your own previously completed work again as if it were fresh, new evidence of learning — without acknowledgment that it has been used before.
Examples: Copying a learning log entry from a previous rotation and submitting it in a new placement. Reusing an audit from your Foundation years and presenting it as ST3 work.
The purpose of the FourteenFish ePortfolio is to demonstrate ongoing learning. Recycled work does not achieve this, and misrepresents your progress to assessors.
4️⃣ Deliberate Plagiarism
Knowingly copying another person's work and presenting it as your own. This includes downloading learning log reflections from the internet, copying from another trainee's portfolio with their knowledge, or having someone else write your entries.
This is always a serious disciplinary matter and will be investigated under the Deanery's misconduct procedures.
5️⃣ Fabrication and Fraud
Fabrication means inventing or falsifying data, assessments, or evidence. Fraud involves gaining a material benefit — such as pay — through deception.
Examples: Falsifying assessment reports. Claiming OOH sessions you did not do. Asking a partner or friend to complete your MSF or PSQ. Falsely claiming eLearning modules have been completed.
These are at the most serious end of the spectrum and can result in Police investigation, criminal prosecution, and GMC referral with loss of licence to practise.
🔍 How Plagiarism Is Detected in GP Training
Detection is more sophisticated than many trainees realise. Understanding how detection works helps trainees avoid inadvertent submission of anything they would not be happy to defend in conversation.
1️⃣ Turnitin — Similarity Scores and AI Writing Scores
Turnitin is the principal plagiarism detection tool used across UK medical and healthcare education. It compares submitted work against:
- Billions of web pages and published academic works
- Documents submitted by other trainees and students worldwide
- Healthcare science trainee submissions via the NHS OneFile platform (a growing, cross-referenced database of prior trainee work)
It generates two scores that assessors can see:
📊 Overall Similarity Score
The percentage of the text that matches existing sources. A high score does not automatically mean plagiarism — properly cited and quoted material also matches. Academic judgement is always applied alongside the score.
🤖 AI Writing Score
The estimated proportion of text generated by a large language model. This score is visible to assessors — but NOT to trainees. Trainees cannot see their own AI score. Assessors can.
2️⃣ ARCP Panel Verbal Questioning — RCGP 2024 Guidance
The RCGP (2024) has explicitly stated that ARCP panels should explore Clinical Case Review (CCR) learning log entries where there are concerns about the authenticity of the underlying case or the quality of the reflection.
ARCP panels are empowered to question trainees directly about their portfolio entries. A trainee asked to discuss an entry they did not genuinely write will typically be unable to answer in the specific, contextual way that authentic experience produces.
3️⃣ Educational Supervisor Verbal Discussion
Educational supervisors are encouraged to routinely discuss learning log entries with trainees verbally during supervision. This conversation quickly reveals whether genuine reflection has occurred. A trainee who wrote an entry from real clinical experience can discuss it naturally, add context, and recall the patient. One who copied or used AI typically cannot.
4️⃣ Pattern Recognition by Experienced Educators
- Inconsistency of tone and vocabulary between entries or across time
- Clinical terminology or sophistication inconsistent with the trainee's observed level
- Absence of personal voice, specific patients, or genuine uncertainty
- Entries that read as summaries of guidelines rather than personal experiences
- Structural uniformity across all entries suggesting a single template source
- Implausibly high volume or quality of entries submitted close to ARCP deadlines
✍️ How to Write Authentically — A Practical Guide
Most plagiarism problems in GP training can be completely avoided by following one simple method. Here it is.
🧩 The THINK → CLOSE → WRITE Method
🗺️ The 7-Step GP Reflection Framework
Use this for any learning log entry, significant event, or PDP reflection.
⚡ Practical Shortcuts — What Actually Works
| Technique | Why It Works | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Use "I" statements | Almost impossible to plagiarise. Instantly personal. Signals authentic reflection. | "I felt…", "I realised…", "I struggled with…", "I was unsure whether…" |
| Include uncertainty | Real learning involves not knowing. Uncertainty signals authenticity to any experienced reader. | "I wasn't sure whether…", "In hindsight, I think…", "I may have…" |
| Link to patient impact | Makes it unique to your consultation — impossible to copy because it didn't happen to anyone else. | "This changed how the patient responded…", "She seemed relieved when I…" |
| Keep slightly imperfect language | Over-polished prose is a red flag. Your natural writing voice is your strongest protection. | Write as you would speak — clear but human, not clinical-textbook perfect |
🌟 The Most Important Principle in UK GP Training
In UK GP training, your voice matters more than being "correct."
An imperfect entry that shows real thinking, genuine uncertainty, and honest self-awareness is worth more to an assessor than a polished entry that shows none of those things. You are not being assessed on how well you can reproduce guidelines. You are being assessed on how you think, reflect, and grow as a doctor.
The RCGP Portfolio Pathway guidance identifies the most common failure in reflective writing as over-description: writing a detailed account of a clinical case without any personal analysis, evaluation, or reflection on learning. An entry that reads "I saw a patient with X, I did Y, the outcome was Z" — however detailed — is description, not reflection. It is also the type most likely to appear superficially plagiaristic, because clinical descriptions without personal voice are interchangeable.
If you find written reflection genuinely difficult — whether due to language barriers, dyslexia, or learning style — verbal reflection is a recognised and acceptable alternative. Discuss cases verbally with your Educational Supervisor, who can document that genuine reflection occurred. This is specifically acknowledged in NHS deanery guidance and is a legitimate pathway that trainees often don't know about.
Speak to your ES about this option if written reflection is a significant barrier. The goal is genuine professional development — the medium is secondary.
🤖 AI & Your Portfolio — The RCGP's Current Position
The ChatGPT Problem — and What the RCGP Actually Says
AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude can produce fluent, convincing text about almost any clinical scenario in seconds. Over 60% of GP trainees already use generative AI to support reflective practice. The RCGP has published specific guidance on this — and it is more nuanced than a blanket ban.
- AI-generated learning log entries look plausible — but they reflect no real learning
- Submitting AI-generated reflections without real patient experience underpinning them is unacceptable
- Turnitin's AI writing score is visible to assessors but not to trainees — you will not see it; they will
- A purely mechanistic "cut and paste" approach to portfolio entries "risks raising concerns surrounding probity" — RCGP 2024
📋 The RCGP's Specific 2024 Guidance — What Is and Isn't Permitted
- Reference and information synthesis — e.g. summarising background information on a clinical topic before you write your own reflection
- Prompts and suggestions for areas of reflection — as a starting point to spark thinking, not as the reflection itself
- Feedback on a submitted conclusion or topic list — then reflecting on and fact-checking that feedback in your own words
- Generating educational materials — such as slides, MCQ questions, or case simulations for teaching purposes
- Using AI to generate reflections without real patient experience underpinning them — explicitly prohibited by the RCGP
- AI-generated diagnosis, clinical interpretation, or management advice — described as "potentially dangerous with possible significant impacts on patient care and outcomes"
- A purely mechanistic "cut and paste" approach to portfolio entries — described as raising concerns around probity
🔑 The RCGP Authenticity Principle
Portfolio entries must reflect the author's own ideas, reflections, and experiences. AI tools may support the approach to reflective practice — but the core content must be grounded in the user's own thoughts and real clinical encounters.
The RCPCH frames it this way: "AI can be a useful tool to support aspects of personal and educational development... but core content must be based on original work."
The FourteenFish ePortfolio is not box-ticking. Reflective practice is one of the most important skills you will develop as a GP. It underpins revalidation throughout your career. An AI cannot reflect on your behalf — and a portfolio full of AI-generated text tells your assessors nothing about the doctor you are actually becoming. The skills you fail to develop now are the ones you will miss in independent practice.
🌫 The Grey Areas — Where People Get Confused
This is the section most training programmes skip, but trainees actually need it most. Here is a plain guide to the situations that genuinely fall into uncertain territory.
📚 How to Reference Properly in GP Training Submissions
Most plagiarism problems could be avoided with simple, consistent referencing. Here is a practical guide for the types of sources you will use in GP training.
📋 The Code of Conduct — FourteenFish ePortfolio
The FourteenFish ePortfolio Code of Conduct applies to all users of the RCGP Trainee ePortfolio — not just trainees.
Core Duties of All Registered Doctors
All registered medical doctors have a duty placed on them by the General Medical Council (GMC) to be honest and trustworthy. This is not a training regulation — it is a fundamental professional obligation that runs throughout a doctor's entire career.
Trainee performance in Workplace Based Assessments is reviewed by doctors who themselves have a duty to notify the GMC if they have concerns. Misconduct before, during, or after assessments can be referred to the GMC.
General Principles for All Users
- Conform to acceptable and appropriate standards of behaviour when using the ePortfolio and undertaking WPBA.
- Exercise an approach consistent with standards expected by the GMC (or appropriate regulatory body) and your employing organisation.
- Fraudulent misuse of the FourteenFish ePortfolio is an extremely serious offence.
- Any form of impersonation in the ePortfolio is unacceptable.
- Making entries that are deliberately misleading or malicious — particularly those relating to assessments — is unacceptable.
- All allegations of misconduct will be dealt with under the Deanery's misconduct procedures.
🚫 Unacceptable Conduct — By Category
Any fabrication, plagiarism, false claim, or fraudulent action that occurs during the collection of evidence for the WPBA part of the MRCGP examination will lead to investigation, local action, and referral to the GMC. The following list is illustrative, not exhaustive.
📝 Assessment Tools
- Falsifying assessment reports
- Asking peers, friends, spouses, partners, or relatives to complete assessment reports on your behalf
📋 PDP (Personal Development Plan)
- Plagiarism of PDP entries
- Falsely claiming to have completed stated educational aims
🏥 Clinical Supervisor Report
- Fabricating a clinical supervisor's report
- Having someone complete this on behalf of the supervisor without their knowledge
📓 Learning Log
- Plagiarism or sharing learning log entries
- Asking someone else to write your entry and presenting it as your own
- Fabricating details within an entry (including clinical details)
- Falsely claiming to have completed eLearning modules
- Falsely claiming to have performed OOH sessions
- Falsifying OOH record sheets or course certificates
🗣 MSF (Multisource Feedback)
- Fabricating responses to the MSF request
- Inserting false responses into the FourteenFish ePortfolio
- Selecting only favourable respondents and misrepresenting the selection
👥 PSQ (Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire)
- Falsely filling in PSQ forms as if completed by a patient
- Uploading your own PSQ forms
- Editing out adverse patient comments from PSQ entries
🔬 DOPS (Procedural Skills)
- Filling out your own DOPS assessment sheet
- Arranging for a peer, friend, spouse, or partner to complete the DOPS form
📜 Health & Probity Declarations
- Making false declarations about health or probity
- Failing to declare GMC conditions, suspension, or referral
👩💼 Educational Supervisors & Deanery Employees
- Inappropriately deleting evidence from a trainee's portfolio
- Adding false evidence to a trainee's portfolio
- Completing ePortfolio entries on behalf of trainees without disclosure
⚙️ General
- Giving false information when asked to explain suspicious actions
- Any form of impersonation within the ePortfolio system
⚖️ Penalties — What Actually Happens
Penalties depend on the nature and severity of the offence. Most WPBA misconduct is identified by an educator or administrator within a Deanery and managed under the Deanery's misconduct procedures.
Fabricating evidence and falsely claiming to have done work for which a doctor has been paid — including Out of Hours (OOH) sessions — is fraud. This can result in a Police conviction, GMC referral, and loss of licence to practise in the UK. All cases of WPBA misconduct are regarded as Significant Events and will be considered under Trainee Revalidation processes.
| Severity Level | Typical Pathway | Possible Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Minor / Inadvertent | Discussion with trainer or ES; guidance and support | Entry amended or removed; learning conversation |
| Moderate / Deliberate | Formal deanery misconduct process | RCGP notification; ARCP consequence; extended training |
| Serious | Deanery + RCGP + GMC | GMC referral; suspension; programme removal |
| Criminal (e.g. OOH fraud) | NHS Fraud Unit + Police | Criminal prosecution; loss of licence; career end |
👁 What To Do If You Witness Misconduct
This is an aspect of the Code of Conduct that trainees rarely receive clear guidance on — but it matters enormously. The GMC's Good Medical Practice is unambiguous: all doctors have a duty to act when patient safety or professional standards are at risk.
- You are not obliged to investigate or confront the trainee directly
- You should not collude — helping conceal misconduct can itself become a problem
- Speak confidentially with your Educational Supervisor or your GP trainer in the first instance
- The decision about how to proceed formally rests with your supervisor and deanery — not with you
- Reporting genuine concerns is professional behaviour, not "telling tales"
- You have an active duty — not just a passive option — to address concerns
- Document what you have observed accurately and contemporaneously
- Escalate to the Training Programme Director (TPD) for your scheme
- The Deanery's misconduct procedures then apply — you do not manage this alone
- Even where you are unsure if misconduct occurred, seeking guidance from the TPD is appropriate
🎓 For Trainers — Teaching This Topic
Most trainees who plagiarise do so because nobody ever clearly explained where the lines are. A brief, direct conversation at the start of each new post — covering what is and isn't acceptable — significantly reduces risk. Prevention is far better than a misconduct investigation six months later.
Common Trainee Blind Spots
- Not understanding that AI-generated text submitted as personal reflection is plagiarism
- Believing that "I already reflected on this case — the AI just wrote it up better" is acceptable
- Not realising that collusion applies even when sharing is well-intentioned (e.g. helping a struggling colleague)
- Thinking that templates from training websites can be filled in and directly submitted
- Assuming that because a resource is freely available online, it can be copied without attribution
👀 What Trainers Actually Look For — Red Flags Supervisors Notice Immediately
Supervisors who review portfolios regularly develop an instinct for entries that don't feel right. These are the specific patterns that prompt a closer look — or a direct conversation.
- Sudden unexplained change in writing style between entries
- Overly "textbook-perfect" language without personal voice
- No uncertainty, hesitation, or honest self-doubt in any entry
- Generic statements that could apply to any consultation: "This improved my communication skills"
- Lack of specific clinical detail — vague descriptions of what actually happened
- Near-identical structure and phrasing across multiple entries in different posts
- Multiple trainees in the same scheme submitting similar-sounding entries
- Entries that describe complexity or insight inconsistent with observed clinical level
"This doesn't sound like you."
That thought — quiet but immediate — is what trainers experience when reading an entry that isn't authentic. They may not always raise it immediately, but it is noticed. And when it appears consistently, it becomes a formal concern.
The corollary: Authentic entries — even imperfect, uncertain, or slightly rough in language — never trigger this thought. They invite curiosity, not suspicion.
After reading any submitted entry, ask the trainee: "Could someone else have written this?"
If the honest answer is yes — the entry is not reflective enough. This question is more powerful than any checklist because it requires the trainee to apply the core principle themselves.
Tutorial Ideas & Reflective Questions
Present a trainee with three learning log entries: one clearly their own, one clearly AI-generated, one a blend. Ask them to discuss what they would submit and why. Explore what it means for something to represent genuine personal reflection.
Work through the grey area scenarios in this page's Grey Areas section together. Ask: "Where would you draw the line?" Many trainees have genuinely never thought carefully about this, and the discussion itself is valuable CPD.
Trainer Checklist
- Discuss Code of Conduct at the induction meeting for every new trainee rotation
- Include plagiarism and AI use in the initial tutorial plan
- Ask trainees to explain their reasoning in reflections during CbD — AI-generated entries often cannot withstand scrutiny in conversation
- Ensure trainees know how to reference sources properly in their learning logs
- Remind trainees that the ePortfolio is for their professional development — not a performance to be optimised
💡 Insider Pearls — What Nobody Tells You At First
Many trainees feel under pressure to produce impressive-looking ePortfolio entries, especially early in training. This is when the temptation to "borrow" from online resources or use AI creeps in. The irony is that authentic, honest, sometimes uncertain reflections are exactly what assessors want to see. An imperfect entry that shows real thinking beats a polished one that shows none.
ARCP panels review learning logs in some detail. Entries that all read in the same style, lack personal voice, contain generic "textbook" reflections with no real clinical detail, or follow identical structures across multiple posts can raise questions. A genuinely individual reflective voice — even if it is not perfectly polished — is more credible and more valuable than a suspiciously uniform set of entries.
The FourteenFish platform already uses AI to scan entries. Turnitin and similar tools are increasingly used in medical education contexts. AI-detection tools, while still imperfect, are rapidly improving. The safest strategy — and the right one — is simply to write honestly. It protects you, develops you, and produces a portfolio you can be genuinely proud of.
🧠 Memory Aids — Three Frameworks to Keep You Safe
1️⃣ The HONEST Check — Before Every Submission
For any submission to your FourteenFish ePortfolio, run this quick check:
| Letter | Stands For | The Question to Ask |
|---|---|---|
| H | Hand-written (by you) | Did I actually write this? Is the substance of the analysis mine? |
| O | Original | Is this genuinely new? (Not recycled from a previous placement or another submission?) |
| N | No copying | Have I used anyone else's text, ideas, or AI output without proper acknowledgment? |
| E | Evidence cited | Have I referenced any guidelines, articles, or external sources I drew on? |
| S | Substantive | Does this genuinely reflect my own clinical experience and learning? |
| T | Transparent | Would I be comfortable explaining to my trainer exactly how I wrote this? |
2️⃣ The OWN WORK Rule — What Authentic Reflection Requires
Three things that every genuine learning log entry must contain:
3️⃣ The CLONE Warning — Red Flags That Trigger Suspicion
If any of these apply to an entry, it is worth rewriting before submission:
| Letter | Red Flag | What Supervisors Think When They See It |
|---|---|---|
| C | Copying text — from a source, a colleague, or AI | "This reads like a guideline, not a reflection." |
| L | Lack of personal voice — generic and impersonal throughout | "This could have been written by anyone. There's no 'you' here." |
| O | Over-polished language — too perfect, too uniform, no natural variation | "This doesn't sound like how this trainee usually writes." |
| N | Not their usual style — sudden change in vocabulary, structure, or fluency | "Something has changed. This needs a conversation." |
| E | Everyone writes the same thing — multiple trainees with near-identical entries | "These trainees have been sharing. This needs investigation." |
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Click any question to reveal the answer.
Can I ask my Educational Supervisor to help me write my learning log?
Is it okay to use ChatGPT to help improve my writing style?
I accidentally submitted an entry very similar to something I found online. What should I do?
Do the rules apply if I am on an ARCP panel — not a trainee?
What if my trainer pressures me to fabricate or exaggerate entries?
What do IMGs need to know specifically about this?
How does plagiarism detection work in GP training?
What exactly counts as "my own work" in a learning log?
🏁 Final Take-Home Points
- The vast majority of trainees never have a problem — because they are honest. This page is a guide, not an accusation.
- Plagiarism in GP training covers far more than copying text: it includes fabricated data, false assessment completion, sharing entries, and AI-generated content submitted as your own.
- The FourteenFish ePortfolio Code of Conduct applies to everyone: trainees, trainers, clinical supervisors, educational supervisors, deanery staff, and ARCP panels.
- AI tools like ChatGPT are powerful learning aids — but submitting AI-generated text as your own authentic reflection is dishonest, and the profession is catching up with this rapidly.
- Unintentional plagiarism is still plagiarism. Ignorance is not a sufficient defence. Learn the rules now, not after a problem arises.
- The THINK → CLOSE → WRITE method prevents most plagiarism problems before they start. Close the source. Then write.
- The HONEST, OWN WORK, and CLONE frameworks give you three quick ways to check any entry before submission.
- Penalties can be career-ending. A Police conviction and loss of GMC licence is not a theoretical risk — it is the documented consequence of fraud in this system.
- When in doubt: ask. Your trainer, Educational Supervisor, or TPD would far rather answer a question than manage an investigation six months later.
- Honesty is not just a legal obligation. It is the foundation of the trust that patients place in their doctors — and the thing that makes medicine worth doing.