CCCs
Give your CCC another source of communication evidence
Last updated: September 2026
Each conversation is scored against the standard approved for the case, with the learner's own words quoted under every score. Review it alongside faculty observation and the other evidence your committee already uses.
What's at stake
Subjective assessment data
Faculty observation remains central to CCC review, but communication evidence can be sparse and difficult to compare across a remediation period.
Sparse data points
A learner in remediation may have only a few documented communication observations across several months. Repeatable practice can add another source of evidence between faculty observations.
No longitudinal view
When evidence comes from isolated encounters, a committee may have difficulty seeing whether the same behavior changes across repeated attempts.
Documentation for due process
A timestamped practice report can document what the learner said and how the score was reached. The committee still decides how that report fits with its other evidence.
The numbers
evidence behind each score for faculty and CCC review
ClinicalSim reporting method
structured feedback from every practice session
ClinicalSim reporting method
includes a timestamp and transcript evidence
progress tracking records repeated simulated encounters
How ClinicalSim helps
Structured communication data
Every practice conversation is scored against the standard approved for the case, element by element, with the learner's words under each score. Your committee can read that comparable record alongside faculty evaluations.
Longitudinal progress tracking
Review multiple practice attempts across weeks or months and compare the transcript evidence behind each score.
Reports for CCC review
Assessment data is formatted for committee review, with timestamped sessions, milestone scores, transcript evidence, and progress trends.
Complement faculty assessment
ClinicalSim data doesn't replace faculty judgment. It supplements faculty observation with a repeatable assessment record from each practice session.
Related insights
How to design an OSCE case that shows what a learner can do
Start with the decision the station should support, define observable behaviors, give learners a fair chance to show them, train the SP, and pilot the scoring before the station counts.
What 12 medical students want from AI patient simulation
Researchers interviewed 12 clinical-year medical students and ran three codesign workshops. The students put feedback, case quality, and faculty involvement ahead of novelty.
When a simulation vendor shuts down, the program keeps the obligation
Kognito stopped selling in August 2023. Five questions to ask before a simulation vendor holds records your program needs for resident evaluation.
Questions we get from this seat
What communication evidence can a CCC review besides faculty observation?
Faculty observation stays central, but communication evidence is often sparse and hard to compare across a remediation period, and a learner may have only a few documented observations across several months. A ClinicalSim practice report adds a timestamped record that scores the conversation against the standard approved for the case and quotes the learner's own words as the evidence for each score, which a committee can compare across attempts.
Can a committee see whether a learner's communication changed over time?
Yes. Repeated attempts at the same or related cases are recorded longitudinally, so a committee can compare multiple practice sessions across weeks or months and read the transcript evidence behind each score rather than inferring change from isolated encounters.
Does ClinicalSim replace faculty judgment in CCC review?
No. ClinicalSim supplements faculty observation with a repeatable assessment record from each practice session; the committee still decides how that report fits with its other evidence. ClinicalSim makes no claim that its scoring is more accurate or more valid than a faculty member's read.