healthcare clinicalbacp accreditationclimate anxietyecotherapynature based therapy
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
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
Check their therapeutic training and registration (BACP, HCPC, BPS), plus named modalities they apply outdoors: ACT, mindfulness-based approaches, nature-based CBT, grief work on climate distress.
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
Holds current registration, names specific modalities adapted for outdoor delivery, and cites supervised caseload hours with climate anxiety or eco-grief clients.
02
Evaluation factor
Patient safety and protocol
30% weight
Probe risk assessment for off-site sessions: lone working policy, weather and terrain hazards, confidentiality in public green space, safeguarding referral routes, suicide risk screening outdoors.
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 written site risk assessments, clear escalation and safeguarding pathways, and how they maintain confidentiality and crisis response away from a consulting room.
03
Evaluation factor
Patient communication
20% weight
Assess how they hold sessions with distressed clients while walking or sitting in a woodland or garden setting, including boundary setting and contracting for outdoor work.
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
Explains outdoor contracting explicitly, adapts pace to client state, and distinguishes validating ecological grief from pathologising a rational response.
04
Evaluation factor
Working in a clinical team
15% weight
Look for work alongside GPs, social prescribing link workers, conservation trusts, school pastoral teams, and clinical supervisors; ask about referral volumes and joint programme delivery.
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
Names partner organisations and referral routes, brings cases to supervision consistently, and co-designed green prescribing groups with named health or land-management colleagues.
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.
