A strong PHECC CPC case study describes one anonymised call, explains your working impression, links each decision to the named CPG and version you practised under, records how the patient responded, and reflects honestly on what you would change within your scope of practice. It ends with specific learning points and actions. The EMT CPC scheme is paused, but the skill carries forward.
Key points
- The EMT CPC scheme is paused. A new CPD scheme for all three divisions is approved but its details are not yet published.
- Under the original 2013 EMT guide, each case study was worth 2 points and had to show "direct relevance to the EMT standards and/or practice".
- PHECC published its own case study marking rubric and sample case studies. Read them first; our commentary is independent.
- Name each CPG by number, title and version, and describe only care you were privileged to give at your level.
- Reflection should be self-critical. PHECC's guide warns that a portfolio where "everything is perfect all the time might arouse suspicion".
- Strip every identifier, including dates, places, reference numbers and rare details.
Is PHECC CPC paused? Where the scheme stands in 2026
PHECC's current position is short and clear. The Continuous Professional Competence (CPC) scheme for EMTs "is currently paused" while PHECC reviews and updates the process after public and stakeholder consultation. A new Continuing Professional Development (CPD) scheme "has been approved by Council" and will be rolled out to all registrants (EMTs, paramedics and advanced paramedics) "in the coming months". Meanwhile, registrants can keep maintaining their CPC portfolio on PHECC's ePortfolio if they wish.
The review included a consultation in Naas on 1 September 2025. PHECC's summary notes that CPC shows registrants are keeping up to date but "does not guarantee competence". At the time of writing, PHECC has not published the hours, points, cycle or evidence rules for the new scheme. Our overview of PHECC CPC and CPD requirements tracks the current position across all three divisions.
Why a case study is still worth writing
Three things have not changed. PHECC's Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics expects practitioners to "participate in ongoing CPD requirements of the relevant division on the Register". PHECC's registration rules require each applicant to undertake to comply with "the Continuing Professional Development requirements as approved by the Council". And registration is renewed every year, as our guide to annual registration renewal in Ireland explains for PHECC and the other regulators.
A structured, reflective account of a real call is also portable evidence, whatever format the new scheme takes. Treat what follows as good practice built on PHECC's published CPC guidance, not a prediction of future rules. The same goes for any online CPD courses you complete in the meantime: keep a short reflective note with each one.
What PHECC's CPC guidance asked a case study to do
PHECC introduced CPC for EMTs in November 2013 on a three-year cycle. The original guide for EMTs set the requirement at 18 points a year (54 over three years), with one hour of CPC activity equal to one point. Within the compulsory section, reflective practice and/or case studies carried 4 points. Each case study was worth 2 points, and so was each documented set of key learning points.
By 2017 the EMT CPC year ran from 1 November to 31 October, still at 18 points, with a three-part portfolio: practice statement, basic requirements and additional requirements. PHECC later published a 2018 CPC Guide for EMTs (the "Green Book"), portfolio guidance for 2020/2021, a blank sample portfolio for 2021/2022 and an "EMT CPC Case Study Marking Rubric".
The questions the guide told you to answer
The 2013 guide defined a case study as covering "an incident, condition or injury you have encountered" and prompted these questions:
- What was the patient's chief complaint?
- How did the patient respond to your interventions, in line with the CPGs?
- What went well, so you know what might work well again?
- What would you change, within your scope of practice?
- Are there similar conditions, and can the chief complaint be researched further?
You then list your key learning points. Those prompts are the backbone of the structure below.
How portfolios were checked
Portfolios were not routinely submitted: you signed an annual declaration at re-registration and PHECC could request your portfolio for review. The 2016 trial listed 92 people for submission, reviewed by 10 EMT assessors chosen from 77 applicants. In late 2017, PHECC reported results "six times better" than the 2016 trial and said some portfolios showed "very detailed and worthwhile case studies and reflective practices".
Choosing a call that is worth writing up
The most dramatic job of the year is not always the best case study. Pick a call that taught you something you can explain and act on:
A fork in your reasoning
Two possible impressions, such as stroke versus a mimic, where you chose what to rule out first.
A CPG you used in earnest
A call where the guideline changed what you did, or where you reached the limit of your level.
Something you did not know
A presentation you had to read up on afterwards. The guide treats researching the chief complaint as part of the task.
Handover, equipment or teamwork
A call where communication, kit or crew roles shaped the outcome.
Stay within your division. PHECC's Code requires practitioners to practise only in line with their status on the Register and their scope of practice, and to perform only interventions they have been trained in and are competent to perform. If a colleague at a higher level gave part of the care, say so and write about your own part.
Avoid calls still subject to an open complaint, incident review or legal process. Talk to your service's clinical governance lead first. If a call has already become a complaint or fitness to practise matter, our PHECC remediation courses guide explains that separate route.
How to structure a PHECC CPC case study in seven parts
PHECC's guide set no word count or fixed template, so this structure is our recommendation, turning the five prompts into headings. One to two pages is usually enough.
Case details and CPGs referenced
Title, division, month and year written, and each CPG used with number, title and version.
Why this case
Two or three sentences on why the call matters for your practice and standards.
The situation, anonymised
Chief complaint, setting in general terms, and what you found on arrival. Facts only, no names, places or dates.
Assessment and clinical reasoning
Your working impression, alternatives considered and the findings that decided between them.
Care given and the patient's response
Each intervention linked to its CPG, then the patient's response and how care ended.
Reflection
What went well, what you would change within your scope of practice, and what you now understand differently.
Key learning points and actions
Two to four specific learning points, each with a concrete action.
PHECC CPC case study example, annotated (fictional)
The skeleton below is invented and deliberately generic. The right-hand column is our own rubric-style commentary on what each part is doing. It is not PHECC's official marking rubric, which you should read in full on PHECC's guidance page. We do not quote clinical doses or thresholds. Always take those from the CPG version you practised under, not from a study guide.
1. Case details
Title: New speech difficulty in an older adult: ruling out a reversible cause before the stroke pathway.
Division: EMT. Written: March (year).
CPGs referenced: 1.2 Primary Survey Medical – Adult; 6.4 Stroke; 5.3 Glycaemic Emergency – Adult. Version of each as listed on the PHECC CPG index for my level at the time.
The reader knows at once what the case is about and which guidelines to check. Month and year of writing, never the call date.
2. Why I chose this case
I nearly anchored on stroke from the call information. The case showed me why a structured primary survey matters even when the presentation seems obvious.
Meets the 2013 guide's test of "direct relevance" to EMT practice and names the learning theme early.
3. The situation
Called to a private home to a female whose family reported new slurred speech and one-sided weakness since that morning. She was seated, responsive to voice, with no obvious injury.
"A female", "a private home", "that morning": no age, town, date, station or names. The chief complaint comes first, as the guide's first prompt asks.
4. Assessment and reasoning
My working impression from dispatch was stroke. I completed the primary survey in sequence under CPG 1.2 rather than going straight to stroke assessment, because some stroke presentations have reversible mimics. Findings pointed to a glycaemic emergency.
States the first impression honestly, names an alternative and explains why the order mattered. A weaker version would say "assessed patient, found low sugar".
5. Care and response
I managed the patient under CPG 5.3 at my level, within my service's privileging, recording each step and time on the PCR. Her speech and strength improved over the following minutes and I kept reassessing. We conveyed her and handed over findings, care and timeline. I do not know the outcome after handover.
Each action is anchored to a named CPG and the practitioner's level. The response is recorded, as the guide's second prompt asks, and the unknown outcome is not guessed.
6. Reflection
What went well: following the primary survey in order caught the reversible cause. What I would change: I started a stroke-focused conversation with the family before completing the survey, which could have narrowed my thinking and worried them. I will complete the survey before sharing an impression. I also felt a pull to "confirm" what dispatch suggested, and I now recognise that as anchoring.
Specific and self-critical without self-blame. The change sits within an EMT's scope, and naming the thinking error (anchoring) shows insight. Our Human Factors and Patient Safety course covers cognition and situational awareness of this kind.
7. Key learning points and actions
1. Some stroke presentations have reversible mimics. Action: re-read CPG 6.4 and 5.3 together this month and note where they link.
2. Sequence protects against anchoring. Action: discuss the primary-survey-first habit with my crew partner at our next debrief.
3. Communication with families. Action: hold back on a working impression until the survey is complete.
Each point is tied to an action you could later show was done. Under the 2013 guide, a documented set of key learning points was itself a 2-point item.
8. References
PHECC Clinical Practice Guidelines 2026 Edition: CPG 1.2, 6.4 and 5.3 (versions as listed for EMT level). PHECC Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics.
A reviewer can open the same guideline versions and check the reasoning.
Want feedback-style practice before you write your own? Our PHECC Clinical Case Review and CPC Portfolio course works through turning real calls into case studies, with CPG-linked reasoning, honest reflection, organised evidence and confidentiality.
See what's coveredHow to reference PHECC CPGs in a case study
Be precise here. PHECC's CPGs 2026 (8th Edition) were updated in January 2026, and PHECC states that the 2026 Edition takes "precedent over older versions". PHECC also says the 2026 CPGs may only be implemented by a practitioner who has completed a CPG upskilling programme with a PHECC Recognised Institution and is privileged to do so by a PHECC Licensed CPG Service Provider.
PHECC sets five conditions for using a CPG: you are in good standing on the Register (credentialed), you act for a PHECC-approved organisation (licensed), that organisation authorises you to use the specific CPG (privileged), and you are trained and competent in the skills and medications it specifies. The fifth condition covers responders' certification. Cite the version you were privileged to use on the day, which may not be the newest.
Versions differ by clinical level
The CPG index lists 17 sections, numbers each guideline within its section, and gives a version and date for each clinical level. Some guidelines carry a different version for EMTs than for paramedics and advanced paramedics, so "CPG 3.1" alone is not precise enough.
| CPG | Clinical level | Version |
|---|---|---|
| 3.1 Acute Coronary Syndrome | EMT | V4, 12/2020 |
| 3.1 Acute Coronary Syndrome | P, AP | V9, 10/2025 |
| 1.5 Secondary Survey Medical – Adult | EMT | V3, 02/2021 |
| 1.5 Secondary Survey Medical – Adult | P, AP | V4, 09/2024 |
| 6.4 Stroke | EMT, P, AP | V5, 12/2025 |
| 5.3 Glycaemic Emergency – Adult | EMT, P, AP | V6, 02/2026 |
| 17.1 Clinical Care Pathway Decision – Non-conveyance Adult | P, AP | V3, 03/2023 |
The last row matters for disposition. Section 17 non-conveyance guidelines are listed for paramedic and advanced paramedic levels only, so an EMT should frame any conveyance decision within their own level and service arrangements. PHECC describes scope of practice as dynamic, increasing as the corresponding CPGs change, and publishes a medication and skills matrix showing what is authorised at each level.
Showing reasoning, not just compliance
The Code asks practitioners to use CPGs "as a guide" to appropriate care, expects any departure to be justified and documented, and describes the Patient Care Report as a clear, sequential record of assessment, decisions, care and response. A case study should read the same way. For each key decision, write three things:
- What you saw: the finding or history that prompted the decision.
- What the CPG directs at your level: by number and title, in your own words.
- What you did and why: including what you chose not to do and any departure from the expected sequence.
If another practitioner or responder had already started care, say so. PHECC's CPGs expect you to be aware of interventions already applied and medication doses already given, and to act accordingly.
Reflection that shows learning, not a perfect shift
PHECC's guide is unusually direct about this. It describes reflection as the way "to transform current ideas and experiences into new knowledge and action", asks you to evaluate how successful your response was, and warns that a portfolio showing "everything is perfect all the time might arouse suspicion". Its test is simple: "If you can be self-critical and honestly identify what you might change then you have learned."
Descriptive (weak)
"The call went well. The patient improved after treatment and was handed over at hospital. I learned a lot and will continue to follow the CPGs."
Reflective (strong)
"I started explaining a likely stroke before finishing the survey. That narrowed my thinking. Next time I will complete the primary survey before sharing an impression, and I will review CPG 6.4 alongside 5.3 this month."
PHECC's guidance names no required reflective model. A framework such as Gibbs' cycle or Rolfe's "What? So what? Now what?" can help you move from description to analysis, but the guide's five prompts already cover the essentials. If you would like structured practice, our Reflection for Fitness to Practise course works through Gibbs, Rolfe and Johns in depth.
Handle feelings with care
Note briefly how a call affected you if that shaped your decisions. If a call is staying with you, use your service's critical incident stress management (CISM) supports. PHECC's 2026 CPG page links to a CISM resource.
Our CORU CPD reflection examples are written for CORU registrants, and our IIOP CPD cycle example for pharmacists, but the weak-versus-strong method carries across professions.
Confidentiality and anonymisation: the non-negotiables
PHECC's guide says your portfolio must not include information that could identify patients or carers "by their name, address, job title or in any other way", and suggests that "the best approach is to refer to a patient as either 'a male' or 'a female'". Section 5 of the Code requires practitioners to "maintain strict professional confidentiality" with information acquired in the course of their duties, and to handle all patient records, paper and electronic, with strict confidentiality.
Removing names is not enough. The Data Protection Commission's guidance says that "removing direct identifiers does not render data sets anonymous", that pseudonymised data "remains personal data", and that a few pieces of non-identifying information, combined, can re-identify someone. Under GDPR Recital 26, only truly anonymous information falls outside data protection principles. In a small community, "a female in her nineties found in a farmyard on Christmas morning" identifies someone just as surely as a name.
| Remove | Replace with |
|---|---|
| Exact date, day or public holiday | Month and year of writing only |
| Town, townland, street, landmark, venue or event | "A private home", "a public place", "a rural road" |
| Exact age, occupation, family roles by name | "An older adult", "a family member", only if clinically relevant |
| Station, base, call sign, crew names | "My crew partner", "a colleague at paramedic level" |
| PCR, CAD or incident numbers | Nothing. Do not include them at all |
| Rare conditions or unusual circumstances | A broader description that keeps the learning |
| Photos, ECG strips, screenshots, copied PCRs | Your own description of the relevant findings |
Never copy or photograph the PCR. PHECC's guide treats the portfolio as your property, so keep it in the ePortfolio or a secure personal location, not a shared folder or messaging app. For a deeper treatment of lawful sharing and breaches, our Confidentiality in Healthcare Practice course covers GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 in an Irish setting.
Common mistakes that weaken a case study
A story with no reasoning
A timeline with no working impression, no alternatives and no "why".
"Followed the CPGs"
A blanket statement with no CPG number, title or version.
Out-of-scope care
Describing interventions above your level as if they were yours.
The flawless call
Nothing to change and no doubt. PHECC's guide treats this as a warning sign.
Hidden identifiers
Dates, places, ages and rare details that together point to one person.
Learning with no action
"I learned a lot." Every learning point needs a specific action.
If your PCR for the call was thin, say so in your reflection and fix the habit. Our Documentation for Healthcare Professionals course covers contemporaneous notes, handover records and putting documentation lapses right.
Before you file it: a final check
Run through this list before you upload the case study or file it on paper.
PHECC's sample CPC items page holds examples, shared with registrants' permission, that its assessors judged good, including case studies and reflective practice. Compare your draft with them, and watch PHECC's announcements for the new CPD scheme's details.
Build your case-study skills
CPD you can record as learning where PHECC's scheme rules allow it.
PHECC Clinical Case Review and CPC Portfolio
- Turn real calls into rubric-ready case studies
- CPG-linked reasoning and honest reflection
- Organised evidence and confidentiality
Reflection for Fitness to Practise
- Reflection that shows insight, not excuses
- Gibbs, Rolfe and Johns models
- Building a reflective portfolio
Confidentiality in Healthcare Practice
- Lawful sharing under GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018
- When disclosure without consent is justified
- Handling breaches
Documentation for Healthcare Professionals
- Clear, contemporaneous notes
- Recording consent and handover
- Fixing documentation lapses
Check with PHECC or your service how learning can be recorded under the scheme that applies to you.
Frequently asked questions
Do I still need to write CPC case studies while the scheme is paused?
PHECC has paused the EMT CPC scheme and says registrants may continue to maintain their CPC portfolio on the ePortfolio if they wish. A new CPD scheme approved by Council is to be rolled out to all registrants. Its detailed requirements have not been published yet, so check PHECC's announcements before relying on any particular evidence format.
How many points was a case study worth?
Under PHECC's original 2013 guide for EMTs, each case study was worth 2 points. It counted towards a 4-point compulsory requirement for reflective practice and/or case studies, within 18 points a year. Later PHECC guidance documents should be checked for the values that last applied to your cycle.
How long should a PHECC case study be?
PHECC's 2013 guide did not set a word count. Write enough to show the chief complaint, your reasoning, the CPG links, the patient's response, an honest reflection and specific learning points. One to two pages is usually enough.
Can paramedics and advanced paramedics use this structure?
Yes. The CPC scheme was introduced for EMTs, but PHECC's new CPD scheme is planned for all three divisions. The same structure works at any level, provided you cite the CPG version for your own clinical level and stay within your scope of practice.
Which CPG version should I quote if my service had not yet moved to the 2026 Edition?
Quote the version you were trained and privileged to use on the day of the call. PHECC says the 2026 CPGs may only be implemented by a practitioner who has completed a CPG upskilling programme and is privileged by a licensed CPG service provider.
Can I include the patient's age or the location of the call?
Only in a general form, and only if it matters clinically. PHECC's guide says no information should identify a patient or carer by name, address, job title or in any other way, and suggests referring to "a male" or "a female". Combinations of age, place and date can identify someone even without a name.
Can I write about a call that led to a complaint or incident review?
It is better to wait until any review has concluded and to speak to your service's clinical governance lead first. A CPD case study is a learning record, not the place to work through a live investigation.
Official sources used in this guide (18)
- PHECC, CPC for EMTs (scheme paused; new CPD scheme approved by Council) (2026)
- PHECC, CPC Feedback and Consultation (2025)
- PHECC, Continuous Professional Competence ePortfolio (2026)
- PHECC, Continuous Professional Competence: A guide for Emergency Medical Technicians (2013)
- PHECC, CPC for EMTs: Guidance and Portfolios, incl. EMT CPC Case Study Marking Rubric (page accessed October 2026)
- PHECC, CPC for EMTs: Samples of CPC items (page accessed October 2026)
- PHECC Newsletter, EMT CPC Process (2016)
- PHECC Newsletter, First EMT CPC Portfolios reviewed by Assessor Panel (2016)
- PHECC Newsletter, EMT CPC Roadshow (2017)
- PHECC Newsletter, CPC for EMTs (2017)
- PHECC, Clinical Practice Guidelines 2026 Edition (2026)
- PHECC, Clinical Practice Guidelines 2026 index of guidelines and versions (2026)
- PHECC, Scope of Practice (2026)
- PHECC, Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics, POL005 (2008)
- PHECC, Council Policy POL001: Register, version 2 (2007)
- PHECC, Registration Renewal: Advanced Paramedic, Paramedic and EMT Practitioners (2026)
- Data Protection Commission, Guidance on Anonymisation and Pseudonymisation (2019)
- European Union, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation), Recital 26 (2016)
Checked against the official sources above in October 2026. Rules and fees change, so confirm current requirements with your regulator or scheme.