A realistic one-day FMProC plan
Most people do not need to finish the bank. They need to stop repeating the same mistakes. This plan runs four 75-minute sessions, alternates the two item formats, and spends the end of each session on the items you got wrong.
Before you start
- Check the official FMProC site for the current format, timing and registration rules, and the CaRMS match page for application dates. This guide is about practice, not exam administration.
- Use a laptop or tablet with a keyboard. Ranking items are easier with a mouse or trackpad than with a phone.
- Block four sessions of 75 minutes. Do not plan one 300-minute session; attention fades and the final hour is worth much less.
- Keep a plain document open for one-line principles. If you cannot write the lesson in one sentence, you have not extracted it yet.
Session 1: Rating items first (75 min)
Rating items ask you to score each option independently on a five-point desirability scale. The most common error is treating the scale as a ranking: one option gets a 1, the next a 2, and so on. The scale does not work that way. Several options can share the same score.
The 45/30 split
45 minutes answering rating items, 30 minutes reviewing only the items where your agreement was below 50%. For each weak item, read every rationale and write one sentence about the pattern you missed. Skip the items you already understood; that is comfortable, not useful.
Session 2: Ranking items (75 min)
Ranking items force a trade-off. You have five options and five ranks, and each rank can be used once. Most of the difference is in the middle. The best and worst options are often obvious, while ranks two, three and four separate a good answer from a mediocre one.
- Start with the extremes. Identify the most and least desirable responses before touching the middle.
- Ask what each option does to the relationship. A technically correct response that humiliates a colleague or dismisses a patient usually drops.
- Watch for over-escalation. Formal complaints, ethics consults and emergency declarations are not automatically proportionate. Ask whether the response matches the problem.
- Watch for avoidance. "Wait and see", "document and move on" and "ask someone else to handle it" are common low-ranked options.
Session 3: Mixed timed set (75 min)
Switch formats without warning. Use the practice filters to build a mixed set, set a timer for roughly three minutes per item, and do not check rationales until the set is finished. The point is to practise switching frames, not to maximise your score on each item.
Why three minutes?
It is a practice constraint, not an official rule. Long enough to read carefully, short enough to expose hesitation. If you consistently run over, you are probably re-litigating the scenario instead of choosing a response.
Session 4: Weak areas and principles (75 min)
Sort the bank by review importance, or filter to the attribute where your agreement is lowest. Work slowly. For every item, read the scenario, predict the key before answering, then compare. The gap between your prediction and the answer key is the lesson.
Finish by reading your one-line principles out loud. If two contradict each other, resolve that now. A short, consistent set of principles is more useful on exam day than a memorised list of individual answers.
A review loop that works
- Answer before you check. The attempt history is only useful if it records a real judgement.
- Read all rationales, not only the options you missed. The key often rewards a close option for a reason you did not consider.
- Extract one principle. "Escalate only after the low-risk conversation" is useful. "Remember question b42" is not.
- Mark importance 4 or 5 for anything under 50% agreement. Those are the items to revisit, not the whole bank.
- Stop when returns flatten. Fatigue produces careless answers that pollute your history.
Common traps
Overreaching for the ethical answer
A response that sounds highly ethical but ignores proportion, consent or the cost to the patient is often mid-ranked, not top-ranked.
The vague team discussion
"Discuss with the team" can be appropriate or evasive. The test is whether it names a concrete next step and a timeframe.
Balancing empathy and action
Acknowledging emotion and solving the problem are not mutually exclusive. The strongest options usually do both, in that order.
Reusing a rank
Do not use the same rank twice. If you are stuck, rank the extremes first and force yourself to choose between the remaining middle options.
Use the plan
The full bank is free. Start a session, check your answers, and use the review-importance sort to return to weak items.
FMProC is set by the University of Calgary and sits inside the CaRMS match. Royal College residency programs also use the CanMEDS roles. This guide covers neither set of rules.