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 licensure status (NCLEX/NMC registration), specialty setting, and hands-on scope: IV starts, central line care, wound management, telemetry interpretation, ventilator patients, typical acuity and ratios carried.
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 active licence, certifications such as BLS/ACLS or CCRN, and describes specific procedures and patient acuity handled independently.
02
Evaluation factor
Patient safety and protocol
30% weight
Probe medication safety habits: five rights, high-alert double checks, barcode scanning, insulin and heparin titration, plus incident reporting and response to a near miss they caused.
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
Recounts a real error or near miss, the reporting pathway used, and the practice change adopted afterward without deflecting blame.
03
Evaluation factor
Patient communication
20% weight
Assess how they explain diagnoses, discharge teaching, and consent to anxious patients or families, including interpreter use and de-escalating an agitated or grieving relative.
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
Describes teach-back, plain language substitutions for clinical terms, and a specific conversation where the family left calmer and better informed.
04
Evaluation factor
Working in a clinical team
15% weight
Test handover discipline (SBAR), escalation to the physician or rapid response, charge nurse and CNA delegation, and how they handled disagreement over a treatment plan.
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
Gives a concrete escalation example with timing, who was called, and how they advocated for the patient while keeping the team functioning.
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.
