The PLAB 2 mark scheme and how the exam is passed
Three domains, each marked 1 to 4 at every station. This page explains the generic scheme, shows how examiners customise it to an individual station, sets out the GMC’s ten feedback statements, and sets out the two conditions you must meet to pass overall.
Reviewed and kept current
Last editorial review: 19 September 2026 · Next scheduled refresh: March 2027.
What the GMC says each domain covers
Data gathering, technical and assessment skills
History taking, physical examination, practical procedures, investigations leading to a diagnosis.
Clinical management skills
Formulating a diagnosis, explaining something to the patient, formulating a management plan.
Interpersonal skills
How you approach the station: rapport, open and closed questioning, involving the patient, professionalism and understanding of ethical principles.
Each domain is marked on four ranks, 1 to 4, and carries the same maximum — so each station is marked out of 12 (lowest possible 3) and a 16-station exam out of 192. Your results letter reports your mark in each domain for each station, your station total, the score needed to pass that station, and whether you passed it. The examiner assesses your approach to the patient throughout, even when not physically in the room.
Source: GMC — How will you be tested? · GMC — Understanding your results
The sheet used at every Acumen practice station
The GMC publishes the domains and the four-mark maximum but not the descriptors its examiners use. The descriptors below are our training calibration: they are anchored to the GMC’s domain definitions and feedback statements and to the F2 standard.
Domain marks
| Domain (GMC wording) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · Data gathering, technical and assessment skills | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | /4 |
| 2 · Clinical management skills | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | /4 |
| 3 · Interpersonal skills | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | /4 |
| Station total | /12 |
Examiner's overall judgement (standard-setting only — it does not decide your result): ☐ Unsatisfactory ☐ Borderline ☐ Satisfactory ☐ Good
What each mark means
| Mark | Acumen training descriptor — applies to each domain | Typical picture |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Complete, prioritised and fluent. Every key task for the domain achieved; nothing unsafe; the patient's agenda visibly shapes the consultation. | A confident F2 you would be happy to have on your team. |
| 3 | Competent. Most key tasks achieved; omissions are minor and do not affect safety or the patient's understanding. | Safe and sound, with small gaps. |
| 2 | Borderline. Some key tasks achieved but important gaps, poor prioritisation or a disorganised approach. Nothing dangerous. | Would be safe with supervision; the station could go either way. |
| 1 | Poor or unsafe. Few key tasks achieved; major omissions or incorrect reasoning; communication that damages rapport — or a safety-critical action missed, harmful advice given, or disrespectful behaviour, whatever else was done well. | Below the standard expected of an F2; patient safety or trust compromised. |
GMC feedback statements — where underperformance was identified
A feedback statement marks where underperformance was identified in the consultation. With PLAB 2 results the GMC may attach any combination of the ten statements to a station — none, one or several. Tick every statement that applied; leave all blank if none did.
| Tick | GMC feedback statement | Underperformance it signals |
|---|---|---|
| ☐ | 1 · Consultation | Disorganised or unstructured consultation |
| ☐ | 2 · Issues | Key issues or priorities not recognised |
| ☐ | 3 · Time | Poor time management |
| ☐ | 4 · Findings | Abnormal findings or results, or their implications, not identified |
| ☐ | 5 · Examination | Physical examination or use of instruments not competent |
| ☐ | 6 · Diagnosis | Working diagnosis or differential diagnoses not correct |
| ☐ | 7 · Management | Management plan not reflecting current best practice |
| ☐ | 8 · Rapport | Rapport and sensitivity to the patient’s feelings and concerns not shown |
| ☐ | 9 · Listening | Verbal and non-verbal cues not used; poor active listening |
| ☐ | 10 · Language | Language or explanations not understandable; understanding not checked |
Timing checkpoints (observer)
| Timing checkpoint (8-minute station) | Done | Minute |
|---|---|---|
| Name and GMC number confirmed; patient greeted and identified; patient opens without interruption | ☐ | |
| Presenting problem characterised and red flags screened by 3:30 | ☐ | |
| Ideas, concerns and expectations elicited by 4:30 | ☐ | |
| Examination requested / findings obtained and a summary offered by 5:30 | ☐ | |
| In management — explanation started — by 6:00, with two minutes left (no warning bell is guaranteed in the real examination) | ☐ | |
| Specific safety-net, follow-up and understanding check before 8:00 | ☐ |
Full explanation: the mark scheme and how PLAB 2 is passed · anatomy of the 8-minute station.
How a scheme is customised to the station
An examiner does not mark “data gathering” in the abstract. Each station comes with its own list of what a competent F2 would do in that scenario. The generic descriptor tells the examiner what a 3 looks like; the station list tells them what the candidate had to do to earn it. Here is a worked example.
Worked example — first seizure. Mr Luke Forster, 28, attends a GP same-day appointment. He had a first-ever seizure yesterday, witnessed by his partner. He is now well but anxious. Task: take a focused history, assess for red flags and precipitants, advise on safety including driving, and arrange appropriate investigation and referral. Do not examine.
| Mark | Domain 1 · Data gathering | Domain 2 · Clinical management | Domain 3 · Interpersonal skills |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 |
|
|
|
| 3 | Event well characterised with witness account; one area thin — for example precipitants or family history. | Referral, driving advice and safety-net all present; bloods/ECG or partner advice missing. | Warm and clear; driving advice given kindly but its impact not explored. |
| 2 | Seizure described but red flags or alcohol/drug history not covered; ICE late or absent. | Refers, but driving advice vague (“best not to drive for a bit”) or safety advice missing. | Polite but checklist-driven; some jargon; understanding not checked. |
| 1 | Accepts “I had a fit” with little detail; no witness account; or no relevant history at all. | No referral, or routine referral only; no driving advice. Or unsafe: tells the patient he may continue to drive, or gives false reassurance that no tests are needed. | Alarmist or dismissive; concerns ignored; rude. |
Read the example sideways. The top row is the station-specific content. Moving down a column, the content thins and the generic descriptor takes over: competent → borderline → poor or unsafe. Notice the safety-critical error in the bottom row of Domain 2. Whatever else was done well, advice that leaves a patient or the public at risk drops the management mark to 1 — and a station with a 1 in any domain is very hard to pass.
Clinical sources for the example: NICE NG217 — Epilepsies in children, young people and adults · GOV.UK — Epilepsy and driving. Every case in the practice library carries a table built the same way.
The GMC’s ten feedback statements
PLAB 2 results come with two kinds of feedback. Quantitative feedback is your marks: each domain, each station total, the score needed to pass the station, and the exam totals. Qualitative feedback is the feedback statements.
A feedback statement signals where underperformance was identified in that consultation. There are exactly ten. For any station the GMC may attach any combination of the ten — none, one, or several — so a station can carry, for example, both Time and Management. The statements explain why marks were lost; they do not themselves add or remove marks.
| GMC feedback statement | The underperformance it signals | What it means in the room | Most affects |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · Consultation | Disorganised or unstructured consultation | The consultation did not follow a logical structure. Questioning jumped about without a visible line of reasoning, or practical tasks and examination were done in an order that suggested no plan and no clear grasp of why each step was needed. | Domains 1 and 3 |
| 2 · Issues | Key issues or priorities not recognised | The central point of the station was missed — the patient’s real problem, or the immediate management of someone acutely unwell. The classic example is offering lifestyle advice to a patient who needs urgent treatment. | Domains 1 and 2 |
| 3 · Time | Poor time management | Too long was spent on some parts of the encounter, so that other — often more important — parts were rushed or never reached. In practice this usually means a long history and little or no management. | All three — most often costs Domain 2 |
| 4 · Findings | Abnormal findings or results, or their implications, not identified | A significant finding in the history, the examination or the data supplied (bloods, ECG, imaging, charts) was not noticed, or was noticed but its meaning for the patient was not recognised or acted on. | Domain 1 |
| 5 · Examination | Physical examination or use of instruments not competent | The physical examination was not carried out competently, or equipment such as the ophthalmoscope, otoscope, tendon hammer or sphygmomanometer was not used proficiently. Mental state examination counts as examination in PLAB 2. | Domain 1 |
| 6 · Diagnosis | Working diagnosis or differential diagnoses not correct | The correct working diagnosis was not reached, or an appropriate range of differential diagnoses was not offered. | Domain 2 |
| 7 · Management | Management plan not reflecting current best practice | The plan did not reflect current UK best practice. The GMC specifically includes follow-up and safety-netting within this statement, so a sound plan with no safety-net can still attract it. | Domain 2 |
| 8 · Rapport | Rapport and sensitivity to the patient’s feelings and concerns not shown | The consultation was not patient-centred: little empathy or understanding of the patient’s concerns, agreement to the plan not sought, or — named explicitly by the GMC — stock phrases that showed the patient was not being treated as an individual. | Domain 3 |
| 9 · Listening | Verbal and non-verbal cues not used; poor active listening | Full attention was not paid to the patient’s agenda, beliefs and preferences. Typically a series of questions was asked, but the answers — and the cues within them — were not heard or acted upon. | Domain 3 |
| 10 · Language | Language or explanations not understandable; understanding not checked | Explanations were not pitched so that the patient could follow them: medical jargon, speaking too fast, or too much at once. The GMC includes not checking understanding within this statement. | Domain 3 |
The ten titles and their order are the GMC’s. The descriptions are our plain-English summaries, and the “most affects” column is our own teaching guide — the GMC does not map statements to domains. Official wording: GMC — Understanding your results.
How we use them. The same ten titles, in the same order, appear on the examiner’s sheet for every practice case and in the practice log form. After each station the examiner ticks every statement that applied. Over ten or more cases the statements that keep recurring are your revision plan.
Two conditions — you must meet both
How a station pass mark is set
What a results sheet looks like
The GMC’s guide includes an illustrative results table. An extract, with its totals, shows how the two conditions work together:
| Station | Interpersonal (max 4) | Data gathering (max 4) | Clinical management (max 4) | Your total | Pass score needed | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Station 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | Pass |
| Station 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 6 | Fail |
| Station 6 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 6 | Pass |
| Station 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | Fail |
| Station 9 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 7 | Fail |
| Station 15 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 6 | Pass |
| All 16 | 37 | 32 | 31 | 100 / 192 | — | Pass (10 stations passed, 6 failed) |
Figures from the illustrative example in the GMC’s PLAB 2 guide; they are not a real candidate and not a fixed standard.
Three lessons from that table. (1) Station pass scores in the example sit between 5 and 7 out of 12 — a run of steady 2s and 3s passes stations; you do not need 4s. (2) The same total of 6 passed Station 1 and failed Station 9, because every station has its own cut score. (3) You will see fixed numbers quoted online — “you need 10 of 16”, “aim for 8 out of 12”. The GMC publishes no such figures. Aim to be safely above borderline in every domain at every station.
Source: GMC — Understanding your results. Stations can be excluded from results for quality-assurance reasons; the pass mark and minimum number are then recalculated so that candidates are not disadvantaged.
A course heuristic, not a GMC standard
Independence & scope. Independent, formative training material from MD Acumen Ltd. Not affiliated with, endorsed by, or delivered on behalf of the General Medical Council. The GMC does not publish its station mark sheets: every mark scheme and descriptor on these pages is an Acumen training tool calibrated to the GMC's published marking domains, feedback statements and the MLA content map. Practice scores are not a prediction of examination performance. Clinical content reflects UK guidance at the date of editorial review — always check the current guideline. All patients are fictional.
© 2026 MD Acumen Ltd · Acumen Institute of Primary Care · An MD Acumen school · Registered in England and Wales · 16538952PLAB 2 OSCE course · Practice cases · IMG roadmap · Observership · Legal & Regulatory · enquiry@mdacumen.com