Trust and transparency

Editorial and clinical review policy

The standard we apply to public educational content and reconstructed exam material.

Purpose and scope

PaedVault publishes educational material for MRCPCH exam preparation. It is not patient-specific advice and does not replace current clinical guidance, local policy or professional judgement.

Authorship and accountability

Each editorial article identifies its author or the PaedVault Editorial team. Where an individual author or clinical reviewer is named, their byline should link to a profile describing relevant qualifications and expertise.

Sources and clinical review

Clinical claims should be supported by current primary guidance or authoritative sources, with links visible to readers. Clinically oriented articles should identify a reviewer and the date of clinical review before publication.

Recall-based exam material

Candidate recalls are treated as incomplete source material. They are reconstructed, rewritten and checked; they are never described as verbatim or official RCPCH examination papers.

Use of AI

Automated tools may assist with structure, formatting or quality checks. They do not replace source verification, editorial responsibility or clinical review. A human remains accountable for material approved for publication.

Updates and corrections

Articles display publication and review information where available. Material should be rechecked when relevant guidance changes. Readers can report a concern; confirmed material errors should be corrected promptly and the reviewed date updated.

To report a content concern, use the in-app question report or visit support.