Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) Interview Questions & Answers

← All NHS Medical and Dental interview questions

Last updated 24 October 2026 · Created by a practising NHS doctor · Independent of the NHS

Quick answer

What questions are asked in an NHS Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) interview?

NHS Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) interviews usually mix values-based questions with scenarios specific to the role. Typical themes include motivation for academic medicine, research question design, study design and methodology, critical appraisal, publications and peer review and phD and doctoral fellowship plans. Every interview panel writes its own questions, so practise the themes rather than memorising answers. The 8 free questions on this page cover a spread of them.

 

At a glance

• Role: Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) (NHS Medical and Dental)

• Questions: 40 original practice questions, each with a full model answer

• Free to read: the first 8 questions and answers on this page

• Full bank: £4.99, 12 months of access, no subscription

• Independent: not affiliated with or endorsed by the NHS

 

Read 8 questions in full, free, and see exactly what you get before you pay. Unlock the other 32 for £4.99. One payment, 12 months of access, no subscription. Secure checkout through Stripe.

These are original practice questions written to reflect how NHS interviews are run. They are not leaked or official questions, and Healthcare Interview Prep is independent of the NHS.

 

 

Free NHS interview questions and model answers

 

 

Question 1: Why do you want to become an Academic Clinical Fellow, and why in this specialty and on this programme?

Motivation question  ·  Motivation

 

What the interview panel is assessing

The panel wants a genuine, specific reason for pursuing a clinical academic career rather than a general liking for research. They are checking that you understand what an ACF post involves, that you have looked at this programme and its research strengths, and that your interest in the specialty and in research is joined up.

 

Model answer

For me it started with a patient rather than a paper. As a foundation doctor on a respiratory ward I looked after a woman in her sixties who had been readmitted four times in a winter with exacerbations of COPD. Each time we treated her well, and each time she went home and came back. I remember asking my registrar why some patients cycle like that while others with similar lung function do not, and the honest answer was that we did not fully know. That question stayed with me, and it is still the one I want to work on.

Since then I have tried to test whether the interest is real. I completed an audit of readmissions on our unit, presented it regionally, and then joined a small retrospective study looking at social and clinical predictors of early readmission, which is now under review. Doing the slow parts, cleaning the data, rewriting the methods section three times, made me more sure, not less, that I want research to be part of my working life.

I want an ACF specifically because it lets me do both properly. I do not want research to be something squeezed into evenings, and I do not want to step away from patients, because the clinical work is where my questions come from. Protected academic time, a named supervisor and a clear route towards a doctoral fellowship is the structure I need to move from enthusiastic trainee to someone who can lead a study.

As for this programme, I chose it deliberately. Your department has an active respiratory epidemiology group and links with the local clinical trials unit, and I have read two of the group's recent papers on multimorbidity in COPD. I also spoke to a current fellow, who was candid that the balance is hard in the first year but said the supervision is genuinely protective. That is the environment I want to train in.

 

Why this answer works

This answer works because it starts with a specific clinical moment, then shows the candidate has tested their interest through real academic work rather than just stating enthusiasm. It explains why the ACF structure matters and shows research into the programme. Replace the respiratory example with your own patient, question and programme details, and make sure you name real strengths of the unit you are applying to.

 

Key points to include

• A specific clinical moment or question that sparked your interest
• Evidence you have tested that interest through audit, research or presentation
• Why the ACF structure suits you rather than a purely clinical or purely academic route
• Research into this programme, its groups and supervisors
• Realistic understanding that the balance is demanding

 

Common mistakes to avoid

• Saying you have always loved research without any evidence behind it
• Giving an answer that could apply to any programme or specialty
• Implying the ACF is a way to reduce clinical commitments
• Overclaiming your role in previous research

 

NHS values and standards

Commitment to quality of care; Improving lives; Everyone counts. GMC Good Medical Practice: Knowledge, skills and development.

 

Further reading

• NIHR Integrated Academic Training programme guidance
• GMC Good Medical Practice
• Academy of Medical Sciences reports on the clinical academic workforce

 

 

Question 2: What is your research interest, and what question would you want to answer during your fellowship?

Motivation question  ·  Research interest

 

What the interview panel is assessing

The panel is assessing whether you can turn a broad interest into a focused, answerable and important research question. They want to see that you understand the existing evidence, the gap you are addressing, why it matters to patients and whether it is realistic within the time and resources of an ACF.

 

Model answer

My broad interest is in why some people with long term conditions repeatedly need emergency care, and specifically in early readmission after an exacerbation of COPD. The question I would like to answer during the fellowship is whether a simple set of factors recorded at discharge can identify patients at high risk of returning within thirty days, and whether those factors are mainly clinical or mainly social.

I narrowed it down that way for a few reasons. When I looked at the literature, I found several prediction tools for readmission, but most were developed in general medical populations, few included social factors such as living alone or frailty, and very few had been tested in UK hospitals. So there is a genuine gap. It also matters to patients, because if we can identify who is at risk we can target things like early community follow up and pulmonary rehabilitation to the people most likely to benefit.

I have tried to keep it realistic. Within the academic time of an ACF, I do not think I could run a trial, so the first step would be a cohort study using routinely collected hospital data, linked where possible to primary care records, to develop and internally validate a model. That would give me training in epidemiology, data handling and statistical modelling, and it would produce preliminary data I could build on.

Longer term, I see this as the groundwork for a doctoral fellowship application, where I could externally validate the model and perhaps test whether acting on it changes outcomes. I am also open to the question changing. When I discussed it with a patient group at our hospital, two people said the hardest part was the first week at home, which made me think the timing of follow up might matter as much as identifying risk. I would want my supervisor's view on how to fold that in.

 

Why this answer works

This answer works because it moves from a broad interest to a focused question, justifies it with an evidence gap and patient benefit, and shows awareness of what is feasible within an ACF. It also links to future doctoral plans and shows openness to patient input. Substitute your own question, and be ready to describe the key papers in your area in detail.

 

Key points to include

• A focused, answerable question rather than a broad topic
• The evidence gap you have identified
• Why it matters to patients and the NHS
• A realistic first step within ACF time and resources
• How it leads towards a doctoral fellowship

 

Common mistakes to avoid

• Describing an area so broad it could fill a career
• Proposing a large trial that is unrealistic within an ACF
• Not knowing the key existing studies in your field
• Being unable to explain why the question matters to patients

 

NHS values and standards

Improving lives; Commitment to quality of care; Everyone counts. GMC Good Medical Practice: Knowledge, skills and development.

 

Further reading

• NIHR Integrated Academic Training programme guidance
• MRC and NIHR framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions
• TRIPOD statement on reporting prediction models (EQUATOR Network)

 

 

Question 3: Can you talk us through how you would design a study to answer your research question?

Scenario question  ·  Research design

 

What the interview panel is assessing

The panel is testing your grasp of research methodology: choosing an appropriate design, defining population, exposure and outcome, thinking about bias, confounding, sample size and analysis, and anticipating practical and ethical issues. They want to see structured thinking and honesty about limitations, not a perfect protocol.

 

Model answer

I would start by being precise about the question, because the design follows from it. My question is about predicting early readmission after an admission with an exacerbation of COPD, so the aim is prediction rather than proving cause, and that points me towards a cohort design rather than a trial. I would use a framework like PICO, or for prediction the population, candidate predictors and outcome, to pin down each element before anything else.

The population would be adults admitted with a primary diagnosis of COPD exacerbation across, ideally, more than one hospital, so the model is not tied to one site's practice. The outcome would be unplanned readmission within thirty days, which I would define clearly in advance, including how I handle deaths, because death is a competing outcome. The candidate predictors would come from the literature and from clinicians and patients, and I would fix the list before looking at the data, to avoid fishing for associations.

For analysis I would work with a statistician from the start, not at the end. We would need to think about missing data, which is common in routine records, and about the number of outcome events relative to the number of predictors, which governs how large the cohort needs to be to avoid an overfitted model. We would develop the model, check its discrimination and calibration, and use internal validation methods such as bootstrapping, then report it against the TRIPOD checklist.

I would also be honest about the limitations. Routine data depend on coding quality, and social factors such as loneliness are poorly recorded, so I might need a small prospective element to capture them. Practically, I would need the right approvals, a data management plan and agreement on information governance before accessing any records. I would write a protocol, ideally register it, and present it to my supervisory team and a patient group before starting, because criticism is cheapest at that stage.

 

Why this answer works

This answer shows the panel structured methodological thinking: matching design to question, defining population, outcome and predictors in advance, involving a statistician early and acknowledging limitations. It avoids false precision about numbers. Rework the structure around your own question, whether it is a trial, qualitative study or laboratory project, and make sure you can explain why your chosen design fits.

 

Key points to include

• Match the design to the question: prediction, causation or description
• Define population, exposure or predictors and outcome in advance
• Consider bias, confounding, missing data and sample size
• Involve a statistician and patients early
• Acknowledge limitations and practical steps such as approvals and a protocol

 

Common mistakes to avoid

• Jumping straight to a design without stating the question precisely
• Proposing a randomised trial for every question
• Ignoring sample size, bias or missing data
• Claiming the study would prove causation when it cannot

 

NHS values and standards

Commitment to quality of care; Improving lives. GMC Good Medical Practice: Knowledge, skills and development.

 

Further reading

• MRC and NIHR framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions
• EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines (TRIPOD, STROBE, CONSORT)
• UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research (Health Research Authority)

 

 

Question 4: You suspect a colleague in your research group has altered data to strengthen a result. What would you do?

Scenario question  ·  Research integrity

 

What the interview panel is assessing

The panel is assessing your understanding of research integrity and your willingness to raise concerns appropriately. They want to see that you check facts calmly, avoid accusation or gossip, escalate through the right routes, protect the data and patients, and understand that misconduct undermines trust and can harm patients.

 

Model answer

I would take it seriously, because falsifying data is one of the most serious forms of research misconduct and, in clinical research, it can lead to patients receiving treatments that do not work or are unsafe. But I would also be careful, because a suspicion is not the same as evidence, and there are innocent explanations, such as a corrected coding error, an updated dataset or a legitimate exclusion that had not been documented yet.

So my first step would be to look carefully at what I had actually seen. Say I noticed that values in the analysis file did not match the source case report forms. I would check whether there was a documented reason, such as a data query that had been resolved, and look at the audit trail if the database had one. I would not alter anything myself and I would not delete or move files, because the original records may be needed later.

If there was no clear explanation, I might ask the colleague a neutral, open question, for example asking how a particular set of values had been cleaned, if I felt that was safe and appropriate. If the answer did not resolve it, or if I felt uncomfortable raising it directly, I would take it to my supervisor or the principal investigator. If they were involved, or did not act, I would use the university's research integrity procedures, which normally have a named integrity officer, and the sponsor would need to be informed if it affected a study they oversee.

Throughout, I would keep a factual, dated record of what I had found and who I had spoken to, and I would keep it confidential rather than discussing it around the department, because an allegation can damage someone's career even if it turns out to be unfounded. I know raising concerns about a colleague is uncomfortable, especially as a junior member of a group, but the integrity of the evidence and the safety of patients have to come first, and the GMC is clear that we have a duty to act.

 

Why this answer works

This answer balances seriousness with fairness: it checks the facts, protects the original data, considers innocent explanations, then escalates through supervisor, principal investigator and the institution's integrity process. It also shows confidentiality and awareness of patient harm. Adapt the example to your own setting, and know who the research integrity contact is at the institution you are applying to.

 

Key points to include

• Recognise falsification as serious misconduct with potential patient harm
• Check facts and consider innocent explanations first
• Do not alter, delete or move original data
• Escalate to supervisor or principal investigator, then the institution's integrity process
• Keep a factual record and maintain confidentiality

 

Common mistakes to avoid

• Ignoring it because the colleague is senior or because it is awkward
• Confronting the colleague publicly or discussing it with others in the group
• Trying to fix or rerun the data yourself
• Not knowing that institutions have formal research integrity procedures

 

NHS values and standards

Working together for patients; Commitment to quality of care; Respect and dignity. GMC Good Medical Practice: Maintaining trust, honesty and openness.

 

Further reading

• Concordat to Support Research Integrity (Universities UK)
• UK Research Integrity Office Code of Practice for Research
• GMC Good practice in research
• GMC Raising and acting on concerns about patient safety

Found these useful? The other 32 questions cover the rest of the role, each with a full model answer. Unlock all 40 for £4.99.

 

 

Question 5: How would you balance clinical training with your academic time, and how would you protect your research time?

Professional question  ·  Balancing clinical and academic training

 

What the interview panel is assessing

The panel wants evidence that you understand the real pressures of a split post, including rotas, service needs and assessments, and that you have practical strategies for protecting academic time while meeting clinical competencies. They are also checking for realism, self-awareness and willingness to seek help early.

 

Model answer

I think the first thing is to be honest that the tension is real. Clinical work is immediate and visible, and research is slow and easy to postpone, so if I am not deliberate, the research time will quietly disappear. Current fellows I spoke to said the same thing, so I would plan for it rather than hope it does not happen.

Practically, I would agree early with my educational and academic supervisors, and with the rota coordinator, how the academic time will be taken. Many fellows find a block model works better than a day a week, because it allows real progress on analysis or writing, but I would choose whichever suits the project and the clinical placement. I would make sure the arrangement is written down, so it does not depend on goodwill, and I would flag early if a rota pattern was eroding it rather than waiting until the end of the year.

Within the academic time, I would protect it like a clinic. I would set clear goals for each block with my supervisor, for example completing an ethics application or a first draft of a paper, and review them regularly. I would not answer non-urgent clinical emails during those days, and I would not routinely swap academic days for extra shifts. Equally, on clinical days I would be fully clinical, because patients and colleagues deserve that.

I would also keep an eye on my clinical progression. With less time on the wards, I would plan workplace based assessments and procedures early in each placement, use my educational supervisor meetings to check I am on track, and accept that a clinical extension can sometimes be part of the route, which is better than cutting corners. Finally, I would look after myself. Two demanding roles can lead to burnout, so I would build in proper rest and use the academic trainee network for support, because people who have done it are the best source of practical advice.

 

Why this answer works

This answer is credible because it acknowledges the tension, then gives concrete strategies: written agreements, block versus weekly time, goal setting, boundaries and early planning of assessments. It also mentions wellbeing and peer support. Replace the details with what you have learned from fellows on your target programme, and show you know how academic time is structured there.

 

Key points to include

• Acknowledge the real tension between clinical and academic work
• Agree and document how academic time is taken
• Set clear goals for each academic block and review them
• Plan clinical assessments early to stay on track
• Look after your wellbeing and use peer networks

 

Common mistakes to avoid

• Claiming you will simply manage both without any strategy
• Suggesting research can be done in evenings and weekends
• Neglecting clinical progression or ARCP requirements
• Presenting the academic time as time off from clinical work

 

NHS values and standards

Commitment to quality of care; Working together for patients. GMC Good Medical Practice: Knowledge, skills and development.

 

Further reading

• NIHR Integrated Academic Training programme guidance
• GMC Generic professional capabilities framework
• Academy of Medical Sciences reports on the clinical academic workforce

 

 

Question 6: Can you tell us about a time you worked as part of a multidisciplinary team on a project?

Competency question  ·  Teamwork

 

What the interview panel is assessing

The panel is assessing whether you work well with colleagues from different professional backgrounds, value their expertise, communicate clearly and contribute to a shared goal. Research depends on statisticians, nurses, data managers and patients, so they want to see collaboration rather than a solo achievement.

 

Model answer

During my second foundation year I was part of a project to improve how quickly patients with suspected sepsis received their first antibiotics in our emergency department. The team included two emergency nurses, a pharmacist, an IT analyst, the sepsis lead consultant and me. My role was to lead the data collection and analysis, and to help design the changes we tested.

The situation was that our audit showed a delay, and the first instinct among some doctors was that nurses needed to escalate faster. When we brought the nurses into the planning meeting, it became clear that the bottleneck was actually prescribing, because the electronic system required several screens before an antibiotic could be ordered, and doctors were often in resus. The pharmacist then pointed out that a patient group direction approach might not be suitable for all antibiotics, which saved us from a plan that would not have worked.

So the actions came from everyone. The IT analyst built a quicker order set, the nurses redesigned the triage prompt so suspected sepsis was flagged on the department board, and I set up a weekly run chart so we could see whether each change made a difference. I made a point of sharing the chart with the whole department rather than only the consultants, and of crediting the nurses' idea in the presentation, because they had done most of the work at the front door.

Over the following months the median time to antibiotics fell, and the project was presented at a regional quality improvement meeting with the nursing lead as co-presenter. What I learned is that the people closest to the process usually understand it best, and that my job as the doctor in the group was often to listen and analyse rather than to lead from the front. That is exactly the approach I would bring to a research team, where the statistician, research nurse and patient partners each see things I cannot.

 

Why this answer works

This answer uses a clear STAR structure and shows genuine multidisciplinary working: different professions changed the plan, credit was shared and the candidate reflected on their own role. It links back to research teams at the end. Use your own project, and be precise about your contribution and the contributions of others rather than claiming the whole result.

 

Key points to include

• Clear situation, task, action and result
• Specific contributions from different professions
• Your own defined role
• Shared credit and inclusive communication
• Reflection linking to research teamwork

 

Common mistakes to avoid

• Describing a project you led alone
• Implying other professions were obstacles
• Being vague about what you personally did
• Claiming outcomes you cannot evidence

 

NHS values and standards

Working together for patients; Respect and dignity; Commitment to quality of care. GMC Good Medical Practice: Working collaboratively with colleagues.

 

Further reading

• GMC Good Medical Practice
• NICE guideline on suspected sepsis
• Academy of Medical Royal Colleges Quality improvement: training for better outcomes

 

 

Question 7: Why does research matter to patients and the NHS, and which NHS value is most important to you as a clinical academic?

Values question  ·  Values

 

What the interview panel is assessing

The panel wants to hear a thoughtful understanding of how research improves care, including evidence that research active organisations tend to deliver better care, and how NHS values shape the way research is done. They are checking that your motivation is patient centred rather than about personal prestige.

 

Model answer

I think research matters because almost everything we do in clinical practice is only as good as the evidence behind it, and there are still large gaps. Every day on the wards I see decisions made on habit or on evidence from populations that look nothing like our patients, particularly older people with several conditions. Research is how we close those gaps, and in the NHS we have an unusual advantage, because a single health system with shared records makes it possible to ask questions at scale.

There is also a benefit beyond the findings themselves. Being part of a study often means patients are followed up more closely and staff are more aware of current evidence, and the NHS Constitution includes a commitment to promoting research and to informing patients about studies they might be eligible for. I find that persuasive. Research is not an add on to clinical care, it is part of a learning health system.

The value that matters most to me is that everyone counts. In research this is very practical. If our studies only recruit people who are easy to reach, fluent in English, without disabilities and living near a teaching hospital, our findings will not apply to the patients who need them most. In my own readmission work, I noticed that people from more deprived areas were overrepresented in readmissions but underrepresented in the trials that inform COPD care. That made me want to design studies that deliberately include them.

I would add that respect and dignity is closely linked. People who take part in research give us their time and often their bodies and data, and they deserve honesty, proper consent and to hear what we found. On my audit project we sent a summary of the results to the patient group who had advised us, and their reply, saying nobody had ever told them what happened to their input before, has stayed with me. That is the kind of clinical academic I want to be.

 

Why this answer works

This answer links research to patient benefit and the NHS, references the NHS Constitution's commitment to research, and chooses a value with a concrete example from the candidate's own work. It avoids generic statements. Choose the value that genuinely fits your experience and illustrate it with your own example rather than this one.

 

Key points to include

• Research closes evidence gaps that affect real patients
• The NHS Constitution includes a commitment to research
• Research active care benefits patients beyond study findings
• A chosen value illustrated with your own example
• Inclusion and respect for participants

 

Common mistakes to avoid

• Talking only about career benefits or publications
• Listing all the values without depth on any
• Using a value with no example to back it up
• Ignoring the participant's perspective

 

NHS values and standards

Everyone counts; Respect and dignity; Improving lives; Commitment to quality of care. GMC Good Medical Practice: Patients, partnership and communication.

 

Further reading

• NHS Constitution for England
• NIHR UK Standards for Public Involvement
• GMC Good practice in research

 

 

Question 8: Can you talk us through your most significant academic achievement, such as a publication or presentation?

Competency question  ·  Publications

 

What the interview panel is assessing

The panel is assessing the depth and honesty of your academic track record: what you personally contributed, what you learned about the research process, and whether you can discuss methods and limitations confidently. They will probe your role, so accuracy matters more than the prestige of the journal.

 

Model answer

The achievement I am proudest of is a first author paper in a specialist respiratory journal, reporting a retrospective cohort study of early readmissions after COPD exacerbations at our hospital. It started as an audit and grew when my supervisor suggested that, with ethical review of the right kind and a more rigorous design, it could answer a genuine question.

My role was substantial but I want to be accurate about it. I wrote the protocol with my supervisor, completed the governance paperwork, extracted and cleaned data from around four hundred admissions and did the first analysis. A statistician in the department checked the analysis and taught me how to handle missing data properly, which changed one of our findings. I wrote the first draft and coordinated the revisions from four co-authors.

The hardest part was peer review. The first journal rejected it, with a reviewer saying our outcome definition was unclear and that we had not adjusted for frailty. Initially that felt crushing, but the reviewer was right. We went back, redefined the outcome to deal with deaths as a competing event, and added a frailty measure from the records. The second submission received major revisions, which we addressed point by point, and it was accepted about a year after the first submission.

What I learned is that research is mostly about rigour and persistence rather than ideas. I also learned that I need statistical training, which is one of the reasons I want an ACF. I presented the work at a national respiratory conference as a poster, and talking to people who stopped to ask questions gave me two ideas for the next study, including linking to primary care data. If you asked me to defend any part of the paper, I could, because I wrote it.

 

Why this answer works

This answer works because it is accurate about the candidate's role, credits others, describes a real setback in peer review and what was learned, and links the experience to the reasons for applying. Panels often probe publications, so use your own work and be ready to explain your methods, limitations and exactly what you did.

 

Key points to include

• A clear description of the work and its question
• An accurate account of your personal contribution
• Credit to collaborators
• Learning from peer review or setbacks
• Ability to defend methods and limitations

 

Common mistakes to avoid

• Inflating your role or authorship position
• Listing publications without discussing any in depth
• Being unable to explain the statistics or design
• Presenting rejection as unfair rather than a learning point

 

NHS values and standards

Commitment to quality of care; Working together for patients. GMC Good Medical Practice: Maintaining trust, honesty and openness.

 

Further reading

• GMC Good practice in research
• ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work
• EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines

 

 

Ready for the other 32?

You have seen how the model answers work. Unlock the full Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) bank to practise every theme the panel might ask about, with the mistakes to avoid spelled out for each one.

 

 

 

About this NHS interview question bank

To prepare for an NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship interview, practise explaining your research question out loud in two minutes, then defend it: why it matters to patients, the evidence gap, the study design, bias, sample size and what is realistic in your academic time. Panels also probe your publications line by line, your PhD and doctoral fellowship plans, how you will balance clinical training with research, and real dilemmas such as consent when you are the treating doctor, suspected data falsification, authorship disputes, serious adverse events and approvals through the HRA and ethics committees.

This bank is for foundation and specialty trainees applying for NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowships at ST1 to ST3 level, in any specialty. Each of the 40 questions includes a first-person model answer, an explanation of what the panel is assessing, key points to include, common mistakes to avoid, the relevant NHS values and GMC principles, and further reading from recognised UK sources. Themes covered include your research interest and question, study design and critical appraisal, publications and peer review, PhD plans and grant writing, balancing clinical and academic training, ARCP progression, ethics and HRA approvals, consent and capacity, data governance, research integrity, patient involvement, inclusion, supervision, leadership and teamwork.

 

What this question bank covers

• Motivation for academic medicine
• Research question design
• Study design and methodology
• Critical appraisal
• Publications and peer review
• PhD and doctoral fellowship plans
• Grant and fellowship writing
• Balancing clinical and academic training
• ARCP and clinical progression
• Research ethics and HRA approval
• Consent and mental capacity in research
• Data governance and confidentiality
• Research integrity and misconduct
• Authorship and publication ethics
• Patient and public involvement
• Inclusion of under served groups
• Trial safety reporting
• Supervision and leadership

 

 

Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) NHS interview: frequently asked questions

 

What questions are asked in an NHS Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) interview?

NHS Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) interviews usually mix values-based questions with scenarios specific to the role. Typical themes include motivation for academic medicine, research question design, study design and methodology, critical appraisal, publications and peer review and phD and doctoral fellowship plans. Every interview panel writes its own questions, so practise the themes rather than memorising answers. The 8 free questions on this page cover a spread of them.

 

What band is an NHS Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) job?

The questions on this page are pitched mainly at ST1 to ST3 (specialty training level, including run-through and core entry posts) posts. The band for any job depends on the trust and the responsibilities of the post, so always check the advert and job description. Higher bands bring more questions on leadership, supervising others and improving the service.

 

How should I prepare for an NHS Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) interview?

Read the job description and person specification closely, then prepare five or six real examples you can tell using the STAR method (situation, task, action, result). Revise GMC Good Medical Practice (or the GDC Standards for dental roles), consent and capacity, safeguarding, the duty of candour and patient safety. Research the trust's own values and the service you would join, and practise your answers out loud before the day.

 

Which NHS values and standards should I mention in a Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) interview?

Link your examples to the NHS values from the NHS Constitution, such as compassion, respect and dignity, and working together for patients. For this role, panels will also expect you to understand GMC Good Medical Practice (or the GDC Standards for dental roles), consent and capacity, safeguarding, the duty of candour and patient safety. Show these through what you actually did rather than reciting lists.

 

Are these real NHS Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) interview questions?

No. They are original practice questions written to reflect how NHS Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) interviews are typically run. Healthcare Interview Prep is independent and not affiliated with the NHS, and nobody can promise which questions you will be asked. Use the model answers to learn structure and content, then build answers from your own experience.

 

What do I get if I unlock the full Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) question bank?

You get all 40 Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF) practice questions. Each one has what the panel is assessing, a model answer, why the answer works, key points to include, common mistakes and the NHS values it links to. It is a one-off payment of £4.99 for 12 months' access, with no subscription.

Read the full NHS Medical and Dental interview guide →