Patient experience and healthcare access survey (CLB 10)
Task prompt
A provincial health authority is gathering patient feedback on access to primary care. Complete the survey by reflecting on your personal experience, identifying systemic barriers, and recommending evidence-informed policy changes. Write in full, developed paragraphs where requested.
Your task
Complete a healthcare access policy survey for a provincial health authority. You must:
- Reflect on personal experience with access to primary care
- Identify at least two systemic barriers
- Recommend two evidence-informed policy changes
- Write in formal, developed paragraphs
Word count target: 200–250 words
Model answer (CLB 10)
Primary Care Access Survey — Provincial Health Authority
Describe your experience accessing primary care in the past 12 months. Over the past year, I have encountered significant challenges in accessing consistent primary care. As a patient without a family doctor, I have relied primarily on walk-in clinics, which, while convenient for acute issues, are ill-suited for managing chronic conditions or providing continuity of care. Wait times at most walk-in clinics in my area range from two to four hours, which creates a real deterrent for individuals with inflexible work schedules or caregiving responsibilities.
What systemic barriers have you or others in your community experienced? Two barriers stand out. First, the shortage of family physicians accepting new patients in urban centres has effectively created a two-tiered system in which those with established physicians receive proactive, preventive care while others cycle through urgent-care settings unnecessarily. Second, language and cultural barriers remain underaddressed; many newcomers are unaware of available services or lack the health literacy to navigate the system effectively without targeted support.
What policy changes would you recommend? I would recommend two evidence-supported interventions. First, expanding nurse practitioner-led primary care clinics in underserved neighbourhoods would significantly improve access without requiring the full resource investment of physician recruitment. Second, funding community health navigators — trained workers who assist newcomers and vulnerable populations in accessing services — has demonstrated measurable improvements in health outcomes in provinces where the model has been piloted.
Why this scores CLB 10
| CLB Criterion | What this response does well |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Analytical, policy-level response — goes well beyond personal narrative |
| Detail | Wait time data, two-tiered system analysis, nurse practitioner model, navigator programs |
| Organization | Personal experience → systemic analysis → evidence-based recommendations |
| Tone | Academic, formal, civic — appropriate for a health authority audience |
| Vocabulary | ”continuity of care,” “two-tiered system,” “health literacy,” “evidence-supported interventions” |
| Grammar | Dense, error-free complex sentences; hedging and qualification used expertly |
Common mistakes at CLB 8–9
| Weak version | Why it loses marks |
|---|---|
| ”Doctors should see more patients.” | Not a policy recommendation — too vague and too simple |
| Staying only at the personal level | CLB 10 requires systemic analysis, not just lived experience |
| Recommendations without evidence | ”Evidence-informed” in the prompt is a signal — reference real models or data |
| Short paragraphs without development | At CLB 10, ideas must be fully developed and logically sequenced |
Examiner tip
CLB 10 writing is evaluated on academic and professional maturity. The examiner is asking: does this person write the way a policy analyst, advocate, or senior professional would write? That means moving from personal experience to systemic thinking to actionable policy. If your response stays at the “my experience was bad” level, you are writing CLB 7 content in CLB 10 grammar. Both matter.