Interview scorecard template

Wildlife Rehabilitator interview scorecard

Pre-screening scorecard for Wildlife Rehabilitator candidates.

See AI scoring
healthcare clinicalpermits usfwsraptor handlingtriagewildlife rehabilitation
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 care depth: tube and gavage feeding, fluid therapy routes, wound management, splinting fledgling fractures, orphan neonate formulas, caging progression toward pre-release flight or run conditioning.

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 species handled, feeding schedules and formulas used, and describes case progression from intake triage through release conditioning.

02
Evaluation factor

Patient safety and protocol

30% weight

Probe permit and protocol command: state rehabilitation permit, USFWS migratory bird authorization, rabies vector species rules, zoonosis PPE, quarantine separation, humane euthanasia criteria and veterinary oversight.

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 permit conditions and RVS restrictions accurately, applies written euthanasia criteria, and describes quarantine and PPE practice without prompting.

03
Evaluation factor

Patient communication

20% weight

Assess public-facing skill: coaching finders over the phone on containment, refusing illegal home care, explaining why a fawn or fledgling should stay put, managing donor and volunteer expectations.

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

Recounts specific hotline calls where clear, calm guidance prevented harm, including turning away well-meaning but unlawful requests.

04
Evaluation factor

Working in a clinical team

15% weight

Look for teamwork with wildlife veterinarians, volunteer shift leads and state agency biologists: intake record keeping, medical chart handoffs, training new volunteers, coordinating transport and release site permissions.

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 chart and intake log systems used, volunteer training they delivered, and working relationships with a named vet or agency contact.

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