Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Clinical competence
35% weight
Probe procedure mix and volume: composite and amalgam restorations, endodontics on molars, surgical extractions, crown preparations, plus digital scanning, rubber dam use, and radiographic interpretation.
Evidence to listen for
Command of the procedures, anatomy, and equipment the role requires
Holds current registration or certification
Knows normal from abnormal and what to do about each
Recognises when a case is outside their scope
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Unsafe knowledge gaps; registration missing or lapsed.
2
Needs Improvement
Knowledge gaps that would affect patient care.
3
Satisfactory
Competent for standard cases; needs support on complex ones.
4
Very Good
Strong clinical knowledge; safe and reliable across the usual range.
5
Excellent
Names weekly case volumes, describes molar RCT technique and margin control on crown preps, and cites own restoration failure rates.
02
Evaluation factor
Patient safety and protocol
30% weight
Test command of cross-infection control, autoclave validation logs, radiation justification under IRMER or local equivalent, medical history screening, local anaesthetic complications, and medical emergency drills.
Evidence to listen for
Follows identification, infection control, and documentation protocol without prompting
Can describe an error or near miss and what they did
Escalates deterioration early
Treats protocol as protection rather than bureaucracy
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Casual about protocol; would not report an error.
2
Needs Improvement
Inconsistent protocol adherence; slow to escalate.
3
Satisfactory
Follows protocol reliably; documentation sometimes thin.
4
Very Good
Protocol is instinctive; escalates early and reports honestly.
5
Excellent
Describes concrete protocol steps, recalls a real adverse event such as LA syncope or a retained root, and audits own compliance.
03
Evaluation factor
Patient communication
20% weight
Assess how they handle anxious or phobic patients, explain treatment plans and costs, obtain valid consent, and discuss extraction versus root canal options.
Evidence to listen for
Explains a procedure to an anxious or confused patient
Handles distress, pain, or refusal without losing control of the interaction
Respects privacy and dignity in practice, not just in principle
Works with families and carers
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Dismissive of patients; no bedside awareness.
2
Needs Improvement
Task-focused; struggles with distressed patients.
3
Satisfactory
Adequate rapport; less confident in difficult interactions.
4
Very Good
Calm, clear, and respectful with anxious or difficult patients.
5
Excellent
Shows plain language treatment explanations, documented consent conversations, and specific techniques used to complete care for phobic or paediatric patients.
04
Evaluation factor
Working in a clinical team
15% weight
Look for working relationships with hygienists, dental nurses and labs: prescription writing, shade communication, remake rates, and referrals to oral surgery or orthodontics.
Evidence to listen for
Hands over cleanly and completely
Challenges a colleague when patient safety requires it
Takes direction from clinicians without deferring blindly
Handles shift work and pressure without becoming difficult to work with
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Poor handover; cannot work in a clinical team.
2
Needs Improvement
Handover gaps; avoids raising concerns about colleagues.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable team member; handover adequate.
4
Very Good
Clean handovers and willing to speak up on safety.
5
Excellent
Describes clear lab prescriptions with low remake rates, delegates chairside effectively, and gives examples of appropriate specialist referrals.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
