Interview scorecard template

Respiratory Therapist interview scorecard

Evaluate Respiratory Therapist candidates across 4 weighted areas: clinical competence, patient safety and protocol, patient communication, and working in a clinical team. Clinical competence leads at 35%, so check hands-on command of ventilator modes (PRVC, APRV, pressure support), ABG interpretation, weaning and SBT protocols, BiPAP setup, and bronchoscopy or intubation assist experience. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
healthcare clinicalabg interpretationmechanical ventilationrespiratory therapyrrt credential
TL;DR
For clinical competence, look for evidence the candidate names specific ventilators (Servo-u, Puritan Bennett 840), explains why they changed PEEP or tidal volume for a given ABG trend. For patient safety and protocol, look for evidence the candidate cites ARDSNet volumes per predicted body weight, describes a catch they made on a wrong ETT depth or disconnected circuit. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
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 hands-on command of ventilator modes (PRVC, APRV, pressure support), ABG interpretation, weaning and SBT protocols, BiPAP setup, and bronchoscopy or intubation assist experience.

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 specific ventilators (Servo-u, Puritan Bennett 840), explains why they changed PEEP or tidal volume for a given ABG trend.

02
Evaluation factor

Patient safety and protocol

30% weight

Probe adherence to lung-protective ventilation targets, VAP bundle steps, circuit change and suction protocols, alarm response, and how they escalate a failing weaning trial to the intensivist.

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

Cites ARDSNet volumes per predicted body weight, describes a catch they made on a wrong ETT depth or disconnected circuit.

03
Evaluation factor

Patient communication

20% weight

Assess how they coach anxious patients through NIV masks, explain incentive spirometry or inhaler technique, and discuss trach or end-of-life ventilation choices with families.

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 talking a panicking BiPAP patient into tolerating the mask, and teaching MDI spacer technique that changed readmission outcomes.

04
Evaluation factor

Working in a clinical team

15% weight

Look for evidence of code blue and rapid response participation, handoff quality across shifts, working with intensivists and RNs on rounds, and neonatal or transport team coverage.

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 concrete rounding contributions, recalls a code where their airway role was clear, and describes structured shift handoff of vent settings.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Respiratory Therapist

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you describe your experience with mechanical ventilation?

  2. 02

    What experience do you have performing different respiratory therapy treatments?

  3. 03

    How familiar are you with pulmonary function testing?

  4. 04

    What is your experience providing emergency and intensive care respiratory support?

  5. 05

    Can you describe your experience with critically ill patients needing respiratory support?

See the complete Respiratory Therapist question set
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.

Explore AI Scorecards