Ethical Guidelines

1. About Pass the MSRA

Pass the MSRA is an independent online medical education platform established in London, United Kingdom.

We provide educational resources for candidates preparing for the Medical Specialty Recruitment Assessment and related medical examinations.

In these Guidelines:

• “Pass the MSRA”, “we”, “us” and “our” refer to the operator of passthemsra.com;
• “platform” means the website, courses, dashboards, question banks and associated services;
• “content” includes questions, explanations, revision notes, flashcards, mock examinations, audio, video and other educational resources;
• “you” and “your” refer to a user, customer, contributor or visitor.

Questions or concerns may be sent to:

passthemsra@gmail.com

2. Educational integrity

We aim to develop content that is:

• educationally useful;
• relevant to the intended examination or curriculum;
• clearly written;
• appropriately referenced where necessary;
• based on reputable and current sources;
• reviewed with reasonable care.

We do not knowingly publish material that is fabricated, misleading or copied unlawfully.

Where evidence or guidance is uncertain, evolving or open to more than one reasonable interpretation, we aim to reflect that appropriately rather than present unnecessary certainty.

3. Accuracy and currency

Medical knowledge, examination formats and recruitment processes change.

We aim to:

• review content periodically;
• update material when important guidance changes;
• investigate credible reports of errors;
• correct confirmed material inaccuracies;
• identify significant limitations where relevant.

We do not claim that every item will always be completely current or free from error.

Users should verify important clinical and recruitment information against current authoritative sources.

4. Editorial review and corrections

Potential errors may be identified by:

• editorial review;
• user feedback;
• changes in official guidance;
• changes in examination or recruitment information;
• technical quality checks.

When a credible concern is raised, we may:

• review the source material;
• amend or withdraw the affected content;
• clarify an explanation;
• update references;
• correct formatting or scoring;
• notify users where an error is sufficiently significant.

Minor typographical or stylistic issues may be corrected without separate notice.

We will not suppress legitimate corrections merely because the content has already been published.

5. Clinical safety

Pass the MSRA is an educational resource and not a substitute for professional clinical judgement.

When developing medical content, we aim to:

• avoid unsafe or reckless advice;
• distinguish educational simplification from real-world clinical practice;
• refer users to authoritative guidance where appropriate;
• avoid implying that one revision answer applies universally in every clinical setting;
• make clear when local policy or specialist input may differ.

Content must not be used as the sole basis for diagnosing, prescribing or managing a patient.

6. Sources and evidence

We may use sources such as:

• national clinical guidelines;
• professional standards;
• official recruitment information;
• recognised textbooks;
• legislation;
• peer-reviewed evidence;
• reputable educational resources.

Not every short revision item will include a full bibliography.

Where a factual claim is particularly important, contested or time-sensitive, we aim to use an appropriate authoritative source.

We must not knowingly invent citations or imply that a source supports a claim when it does not.

7. Independence from examination bodies

Pass the MSRA is an independent revision provider.

Unless expressly stated, we are not affiliated with, approved by or endorsed by:

• NHS England;
• the MSRA;
• Pearson VUE;
• the General Medical Council;
• any Royal College;
• a specialty recruitment office;
• a deanery;
• a university;
• another examination or recruitment organisation.

We will not use wording, branding or design that falsely suggests official approval or endorsement.

8. Examination confidentiality

We do not seek to reproduce or distribute confidential live examination material.

We will not knowingly publish content obtained through:

• breach of examination rules;
• unauthorised recall of restricted questions;
• improper access to confidential assessments;
• breach of professional or contractual duties.

Users and contributors must not submit live or confidential examination content.

Where material is suspected of being confidential or unlawfully obtained, we may investigate, remove it and restrict the relevant account.

9. Originality and intellectual property

We respect the intellectual-property rights of others.

Content should be:

• original;
• lawfully licensed;
• used with permission;
• or used under a valid legal exception.

We do not treat educational purpose as permission to copy unrestricted amounts of another person’s work.

Sources should be acknowledged where appropriate.

Suspected infringement will be handled under our Intellectual Property Rights Policy.

10. Patient confidentiality and case material

Users must not submit identifiable patient information.

Where clinical cases are used for education, they should be:

• fictional;
• based on common educational patterns;
• sufficiently anonymised;
• or used with an appropriate lawful basis and permission.

Details should be changed or omitted where necessary to prevent identification.

GMC guidance states that patient information used in training records and case studies should be anonymised as far as possible. (GMC UK)

We will not knowingly publish names, dates, locations or combinations of details that could reasonably identify a real patient without an appropriate lawful basis.

11. Privacy and learning data

We handle personal information in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Our approach includes the principles of:

• lawfulness, fairness and transparency;
• purpose limitation;
• data minimisation;
• accuracy;
• storage limitation;
• security and accountability.

These are core UK GDPR principles. (ICO)

Learning data, such as progress, question attempts and performance information, should be used only for legitimate and disclosed purposes, such as:

• delivering the service;
• showing progress;
• improving learning features;
• platform analytics;
• support and security;
• lawful business administration.

We should not collect more personal information than reasonably needed for those purposes.

12. Artificial intelligence and automated tools

Software-assisted and artificial-intelligence tools may be used in limited parts of:

• drafting;
• editing;
• formatting;
• transcription;
• illustration;
• content organisation;
• quality assurance;
• administrative processes.

AI-assisted content should not be assumed to be accurate merely because it has been generated automatically.

Where AI tools are used, we aim to:

• apply proportionate human review;
• check important medical claims;
• avoid fabricated references;
• identify significant bias or unsafe output;
• correct material errors;
• avoid uploading confidential patient or user information without an appropriate lawful basis.

We will not knowingly present unreviewed AI output as authoritative clinical guidance.

13. Fairness, inclusion and representation

We aim to provide a respectful and inclusive educational environment.

We do not tolerate unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation.

The Equality Act 2010 protects characteristics including age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. (Legislation.gov.uk)

Educational cases may sometimes refer to protected or personal characteristics where clinically or professionally relevant.

Such references should:

• serve a legitimate educational purpose;
• avoid unnecessary stereotyping;
• use respectful language;
• avoid implying that a characteristic alone determines behaviour, diagnosis or competence;
• reflect diversity where appropriate.

14. Accessibility

We aim to make the platform reasonably accessible and usable.

This may include attention to:

• readable typography;
• colour contrast;
• keyboard navigation;
• alternative text;
• responsive layouts;
• clear form labels;
• captions or transcripts where practicable;
• compatibility with common assistive technologies.

Accessibility is an ongoing process, and not every legacy resource may immediately meet the same standard.

Users may contact us to report accessibility barriers or request reasonable assistance.

15. Respectful interactions

Users, staff and contributors should communicate professionally and respectfully.

We welcome:

• constructive criticism;
• correction of errors;
• differing educational interpretations;
• suggestions for improvement;
• legitimate complaints.

We do not tolerate:

• threats;
• harassment;
• discriminatory abuse;
• deliberate intimidation;
• repeated obscene or abusive communication;
• disclosure of another person’s confidential information;
• fraudulent allegations.

Critical feedback will not be treated as misconduct merely because it is negative.

16. Marketing integrity

Our marketing should be:

• clear;
• truthful;
• capable of substantiation where it makes objective claims;
• not materially misleading;
• transparent about relevant limitations;
• consistent with the service actually offered.

We should not:

• guarantee examination success;
• imply official endorsement where none exists;
• fabricate scarcity;
• invent customer outcomes;
• misrepresent content totals;
• hide material conditions of an offer;
• use comparisons that cannot be supported.

Objective advertising claims should be supported by appropriate evidence. (ASA)

17. Prices, discounts and urgency claims

Prices, discounts and promotional conditions should be presented clearly.

We should not:

• advertise a false former price;
• imply that an offer is ending when it is routinely extended;
• conceal automatic renewal;
• hide significant eligibility conditions;
• create misleading countdown timers;
• claim limited availability where no genuine limit exists.

A countdown timer may be used for a genuine fixed deadline, such as an examination date or a promotion with a real end date.

It should not falsely imply that access or a price will disappear when that is not true.

18. Testimonials and reviews

Testimonials must represent genuine user experiences.

Where testimonials are used in marketing, we aim to:

• retain evidence that the testimonial is genuine;
• obtain appropriate permission;
• avoid materially changing its meaning;
• disclose a relevant commercial relationship or incentive;
• avoid presenting an individual result as typical or guaranteed;
• avoid using testimonials to substantiate claims that require independent evidence.

The CAP Code requires documentary evidence that testimonials are genuine and requires factual claims within them not to mislead. (ASA)

We should not create fictional testimonials and present them as genuine customers.

Minor editing for spelling, length or clarity is acceptable only where the meaning and outcome are not distorted.

19. User outcomes and statistics

Any claim concerning:

• pass rates;
• scores;
• ranking improvements;
• subscriber numbers;
• question totals;
• user numbers;
• views;
• course completion;
• training outcomes;

should have a clear and supportable basis.

Where a figure is estimated, time-limited or based on a subset of users, that limitation should be stated where material.

We should not selectively present data in a way that creates a misleading overall impression.

20. Competitor comparisons

Comparisons with other revision providers should be:

• based on reasonably current public information;
• fair and relevant;
• clear about the comparison date;
• based on comparable products or plans;
• corrected when material errors are identified;
• free from invented or disparaging claims.

We may express an opinion or recommendation, but objective factual comparisons should be supported.

We should distinguish clearly between:

• verified facts;
• user-reported experiences;
• our interpretation;
• information that could not be confirmed.

21. Sponsorships, affiliates and commercial relationships

Where content or recommendations are influenced by a commercial relationship, that relationship should be disclosed clearly where it is material to users.

This includes:

• paid sponsorship;
• affiliate commission;
• free products or services;
• paid placement;
• commercial partnerships;
• compensated endorsements.

A disclosure should be prominent enough to be noticed before or alongside the relevant recommendation.

We will not allow a sponsor or affiliate relationship to be presented as an independent clinical or educational judgement where it is not.

22. Conflicts of interest

Individuals contributing to content should disclose conflicts that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their judgement.

A relevant conflict may include:

• financial interests;
• employment or consultancy;
• ownership of a competing or promoted service;
• paid relationships;
• close professional affiliations;
• personal involvement in a disputed claim.

A conflict does not automatically prevent participation, but it may require:

• disclosure;
• additional review;
• limitation of involvement;
• exclusion from a decision.

23. Editorial and commercial separation

Commercial considerations may influence which services are developed or promoted, but they should not justify publishing inaccurate or unsafe educational content.

Where practicable:

• educational review should be based on evidence and learning value;
• advertisements should be distinguishable from editorial material;
• sponsored content should be identified;
• commercial partners should not dictate clinical conclusions without transparent justification.

24. User feedback and complaints

We welcome reports concerning:

• suspected errors;
• unsafe wording;
• accessibility barriers;
• misleading claims;
• discrimination;
• confidentiality concerns;
• intellectual-property infringement;
• undeclared commercial influence;
• inappropriate conduct.

Reports should include enough information to identify the concern.

We may review:

• the relevant content;
• supporting sources;
• account or communication records;
• contributor information;
• technical evidence.

We will not guarantee a particular outcome, but we aim to consider credible concerns fairly.

25. Protection from retaliation

A user or contributor should not be penalised merely for raising a genuine concern in good faith.

This does not protect:

• knowingly false allegations;
• abusive conduct;
• harassment;
• fraudulent complaints;
• disclosure of confidential material;
• attempts to misuse complaint procedures.

26. Enforcement

Where these Guidelines are breached, we may take proportionate action, including:

• giving guidance or a warning;
• correcting or removing content;
• requesting further evidence;
• restricting a feature;
• suspending or terminating an account;
• ending a contributor or commercial relationship;
• referring a serious matter to an appropriate authority where legally justified.

The response will depend on factors such as:

• seriousness;
• intent;
• potential harm;
• repetition;
• cooperation;
• applicable legal and contractual rights.

27. Limitations of these Guidelines

These Guidelines express the standards we aim to follow.

They do not:

• create a guarantee that no error will ever occur;
• replace the Terms and Conditions;
• replace professional or legal duties;
• create contractual rights beyond those provided by law or our contractual documents;
• prevent reasonable editorial judgement;
• require publication of every complaint or response.

Nothing in these Guidelines excludes rights or responsibilities that cannot lawfully be excluded.

28. Review and improvement

We may review these Guidelines when:

• the platform changes;
• new technologies are introduced;
• concerns identify a recurring problem;
• relevant law or professional guidance changes;
• our editorial or marketing processes develop.

The current version will display an updated date.

Material changes should not be applied retrospectively where doing so would unfairly remove an existing right.

29. Contact

Ethical concerns, corrections and questions may be sent to:

Pass the MSRA

London, United Kingdom

Email: passthemsra@gmail.com

Please do not send:

• passwords;
• complete payment-card details;
• identifiable patient information;
• confidential live examination material.