Practice Interview Question Thread

[whoartthou]

What’s your reasoning for saying this? Why would the risk be justified if he is healthier?

What if he had another condition that had a worse prognosis? It wouldn't make any sense to take the 10% chance if he could die from another disease process within 5 years.

There are inherent risks to procedures and treatment. Side effect profile and complications that need to be factored in especially if he has other medical conditions which may make it more risky.

It is also about quality of life. If the treatment can potentially offer better quality of life then it may be worth considering. If it just cures the patient but he still has poor quality of life is it really worth putting him through it?

Many students give responses that are naive or too altruistic which doesn't reflect circumstances in the real world (This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it may reflect lack of maturity). In medicine we need to factor all these issues before coming to a decision. There has been times in actual medical practice where I have recommended no treatment instead of prolongation of life because the purpose of medicine is not to always prolong life. You need to consider patient's perspectives and their reasoning. DISCLAIMER ALERT! I am a proponent of quality of life over quantity, however you still need to listen to the patient.

I'm speaking from a more medical perspective and you don't need to discuss in such detail for the purpose of an interview however, if you can give such an answer it shows a level of maturity beyond the expected level.

 

[ABC131]

Hi guys, not sure if this is the right place to post this, but for the 'why do you want to do medicine,' question I have pretty much no anecodetal evidence, is this an issue and would I get a lower mark then say someone who has had extensive experience working as a volunteer in a medical field?

 

[Crow]

Hi guys, not sure if this is the right place to post this, but for the 'why do you want to do medicine,' question I have pretty much no anecodetal evidence, is this an issue and would I get a lower mark then say someone who has had extensive experience working as a volunteer in a medical field?

The vast majority of applicants will also have no experience, so it’s not an issue. Next to no applicants will have “extensive experience working as a volunteer in a medical field”.

 

[ABC131]

The vast majority of applicants will also have no experience, so it’s not an issue. Next to no applicants will have “extensive experience working as a volunteer in a medical field”.

I see thank you! So would I mainly talk about why doing medicine is appealing to me, and insert some experience I have?

 

[Crow]

So would I mainly talk about why doing medicine is appealing to me

Yep, that’s exactly what the question is asking! Unless a particular experience is what motivated you to pursue medicine, then you shouldn’t need to include it unless they actually ask you about your experience.

 

[ABC131]

Yep, that’s exactly what the question is asking! Unless a particular experience is what motivated you to pursue medicine, then you shouldn’t need to include it unless they actually ask you about your experience.

Ok sorry for bombarding you with questions, but many people (mainly family members) have told me I should have had some experience (i.e. doctor who inspired me, sick family member who made me want to care for people), as this would differentiate me from other canditates, is this a misconception? I feel like I have a lot of misconceptions about medicine .

 

[Crow]

Ok sorry for bombarding you with questions, but many people (mainly family members) have told me I should have had some experience (i.e. doctor who inspired me, sick family member who made me want to care for people), as this would differentiate me from other canditates, is this a misconception? I feel like I have a lot of misconceptions about medicine .

Maybe it would - in the interviews I did there was never an opportunity to bring it up anyway - but I’m saying if you’re asked a question of why you want to study medicine, don’t start talking about your medical work experience if it’s unrelated to your motivations - you need to actually answer the question you’re being asked. As I said, most candidates that get into medicine don’t have previous work experience, and there won’t be opportunities to mention it at a lot of the interviews anyway. No point stressing about it now.

 

[ABC131]

Maybe it would - in the interviews I did there was never an opportunity to bring it up anyway - but I’m saying if you’re asked a question of why you want to study medicine, don’t start talking about your medical work experience if it’s unrelated to your motivations - you need to actually answer the question you’re being asked. As I said, most candidates that get into medicine don’t have previous work experience, and there won’t be opportunities to mention it at a lot of the interviews anyway. No point stressing about it now.

Ok thank you, will keep that in mind!

 

[DrDrLMG!]

Ok thank you, will keep that in mind!

Yep, I can also add that in the interviews I've done, there was never an appropriate opportunity to talk about that kind of thing. Any previous experience I may or may not have had was irrelevant to the questions/tasks.

There may be interviews where it would be useful, but I've not come across any.

 

[chinaski]

Ok sorry for bombarding you with questions, but many people (mainly family members) have told me I should have had some experience (i.e. doctor who inspired me, sick family member who made me want to care for people), as this would differentiate me from other canditates, is this a misconception? I feel like I have a lot of misconceptions about medicine .

It's a job, at the end of the day: so the answer to the question is what you personally find appealing about the job, rather than an invitation to share stories about being compelled to follow a divine calling by an "inspirational" person. It's nice if you happen to have one of the latter stories too, but if anything, if your primary motivation to do medicine is founded in being "inspired", this can be a potentially problematic response.

 

[whoartthou]

Ok sorry for bombarding you with questions, but many people (mainly family members) have told me I should have had some experience (i.e. doctor who inspired me, sick family member who made me want to care for people), as this would differentiate me from other canditates, is this a misconception? I feel like I have a lot of misconceptions about medicine .

It's not entirely necessary as other people have suggested but it may increase the strength of your motivation to pursue medicine. It all comes down to how you structure and word your answer. That being said a candidate with more experience naturally shows a willingness to explore and see the reality of the profession which reflects maturity. If two students gave similar answers and one had experience then I would be going with the one with experience as the higher scorer. If you don't have the experience and if it's too late then stick with what you have. If you're finding that you're only doing certain experiences for the process of the interview then I would reflect on your true motivation for pursuing medicine.

 

[ABC131]

It all comes down to how you structure and word your answer.

For this would you suggest I write down a rough sketch of my answers (for some common questions) or should I improvise on the day? As I read that generally pre-preparing or memorising answers will result in less appeal from interviewers.

 

[TKAO]

For this would you suggest I write down a rough sketch of my answers (for some common questions) or should I improvise on the day? As I read that generally pre-preparing or memorising answers will result in less appeal from interviewers.

Not whoart though but I think you should know your key points but don't bother trying to be formal about memorising it. Tailor it to the context but know what you want to pull in should the opportunity arise.

 

[Crow]

For this would you suggest I write down a rough sketch of my answers (for some common questions) or should I improvise on the day? As I read that generally pre-preparing or memorising answers will result in less appeal from interviewers.

There's a difference between having a well-prepared / thought out answer and an overly-rehearsed/memorised one - the former is encouraged, the latter is not.

 

[whoartthou]

For this would you suggest I write down a rough sketch of my answers (for some common questions) or should I improvise on the day? As I read that generally pre-preparing or memorising answers will result in less appeal from interviewers.

Your question in itself reflects that you still have quite a superficial understanding of the interview process. Interview skills are just like any other skill. It can be improved with deliberate practice. You should definitely prepare for the common questions. If you can't give a coherent answer for common questions you are really in trouble. I expect all students to have prepared the "why do you want to study medicine" question in one form or another and also other questions too. Again just because you prepare an answer doesn't mean you will get marked lower than someone who doesn't. It comes down to multiple factors such as your reasoning/discussion, delivery, body language etc. To see this as a black and white answer gives me an impression that you might need a ways to go in your preparation for the interview. Don't take it as offensive in anyway it's just my interpretation of your questions.

I also agree with TKAO. Many students give an answer they have memorised from a question they have heard before. However, sometimes the question is different. You may use similar elements but you need to answer the question presented to you.

I also agree with Crow. Please don't try to memorise your answer but having a few points will help structure your answer.

 

[ABC131]

Your question in itself reflects that you still have quite a superficial understanding of the interview process. Interview skills are just like any other skill. It can be improved with deliberate practice. You should definitely prepare for the common questions. If you can't give a coherent answer for common questions you are really in trouble. I expect all students to have prepared the "why do you want to study medicine" question in one form or another and also other questions too. Again just because you prepare an answer doesn't mean you will get marked lower than someone who doesn't. It comes down to multiple factors such as your reasoning/discussion, delivery, body language etc. To see this as a black and white answer gives me an impression that you might need a ways to go in your preparation for the interview. Don't take it as offensive in anyway it's just my interpretation of your questions.

I also agree with TKAO. Many students give an answer they have memorised from a question they have heard before. However, sometimes the question is different. You may use similar elements but you need to answer the question presented to you.

I also agree with Crow. Please don't try to memorise your answer but having a few points will help structure your answer.

Ok yep thanks, I have much prep to do. Also thank you to Crow and TKAO for your responses.

 

[threefivetwo]

Hi! Here's my first attempt at a practice question, any feedback is appreciated and please feel free to roast me

A doctor went on vacation for two weeks. He did not find another doctor to cover it. One of his patients with hypertension developed severe headaches. The patient has an appointment with the doctor upon his return from vacation. The patient did not look for another doctor and decided to wait. The patient collapses suddenly and is diagnosed with intracranial hemorrhage. Is the doctor responsible for this patient?
I believe that the doctor is responsible for the patient’s collapse for several reasons.

The doctor went on vacation and didn’t find cover. My understanding of medical ethics is that the doctor has a duty of care to that patient at all times, and this includes transferring care to a suitable colleague with relevant details when leave is taken. This is important as not doing so can have severe implications on the health of patients, from them not being able to seek help from their treating doctor who they trust to a mistake possibly being overseen. If this had been carried out, the patient may have been more likely to ask the ‘temporary’ doctor what was wrong when the headaches occurred, and perhaps the hemorrhage could have been prevented. By not doing so, the doctor breaks his duty of care and acts in an unprofessional and unsafe manner.

It can be argued that an appointment had been arranged upon the doctor’s return from vacation, so he’s adequately looked out for the patient and can’t be held responsible for anything that happens in between. However, I refute this argument as this places the patient in an unfair position of being responsible for anything that occurs to their health, where the doctor could have prevented it by exercising their duty of care.

It can also be argued that the patient should have sought care as soon as he/she experienced severe headaches. However, this again places them in an unfair position - it is unreasonable for them to link severe headaches to a potential hemorrhage, this is what doctors are meant to do and why the public places trust in them to protect their health. This deflects blame from the doctor and doesn’t allow them to take responsibility, which is inappropriate as it doesn’t allow them to learn from the situation.

Hence, in summary the doctor is responsible as he breached his duty of care to the patient by not arranging adequate cover which may have prevented the collapse from occurring. The patient has no responsibility for what occurred, and to say they did would put them in an unfair position and deflect blame from the doctor to the detriment of both parties.

 

[Sokka]

Hi! Here's my first attempt at a practice question, any feedback is appreciated and please feel free to roast me

A doctor went on vacation for two weeks. He did not find another doctor to cover it. One of his patients with hypertension developed severe headaches. The patient has an appointment with the doctor upon his return from vacation. The patient did not look for another doctor and decided to wait. The patient collapses suddenly and is diagnosed with intracranial hemorrhage. Is the doctor responsible for this patient?
I believe that the doctor is responsible for the patient’s collapse for several reasons.

The doctor went on vacation and didn’t find cover. My understanding of medical ethics is that the doctor has a duty of care to that patient at all times, and this includes transferring care to a suitable colleague with relevant details when leave is taken. This is important as not doing so can have severe implications on the health of patients, from them not being able to seek help from their treating doctor who they trust to a mistake possibly being overseen. If this had been carried out, the patient may have been more likely to ask the ‘temporary’ doctor what was wrong when the headaches occurred, and perhaps the hemorrhage could have been prevented. By not doing so, the doctor breaks his duty of care and acts in an unprofessional and unsafe manner.

It can be argued that an appointment had been arranged upon the doctor’s return from vacation, so he’s adequately looked out for the patient and can’t be held responsible for anything that happens in between. However, I refute this argument as this places the patient in an unfair position of being responsible for anything that occurs to their health, where the doctor could have prevented it by exercising their duty of care.

It can also be argued that the patient should have sought care as soon as he/she experienced severe headaches. However, this again places them in an unfair position - it is unreasonable for them to link severe headaches to a potential hemorrhage, this is what doctors are meant to do and why the public places trust in them to protect their health. This deflects blame from the doctor and doesn’t allow them to take responsibility, which is inappropriate as it doesn’t allow them to learn from the situation.

Hence, in summary the doctor is responsible as he breached his duty of care to the patient by not arranging adequate cover which may have prevented the collapse from occurring. The patient has no responsibility for what occurred, and to say they did would put them in an unfair position and deflect blame from the doctor to the detriment of both parties.

I'm a fellow aspiring doc so take what I have to say with a grain of salt
I would empathise with the doctor as it was obviously never his intention to harm this patient- this just happened to be an unfortunate sequence of events and unfortunate timing. I would also question why the patient didn't seek another medical professional? Was it out of nervousness? Was it out of a lack of trust with other doctors? Was it because there was simply no other clinics in the area? Whatever the reason, this must be taken into account and reflected upon with the intention of preventing this in the future.
This is a difficult prompt and I'm kind of on the fence, but I am agreeing with you that it is the doctors responsibility to get a replacement doctor. However, I would also go a bit further in my discussion and talk about policy changes, and what can be done in the future to prevent this. Should patients be aware x weeks in advanced before their doctor goes on vacation? Should there be a law requiring a clinic to have a working doctor at all times? What are the pros and cons of each?
(Note: I'm just jotting other stuff u can write about to complement what you already wrote- this isn't a separate response)

 

[Sokka]

Hi! Here's my first attempt at a practice question, any feedback is appreciated and please feel free to roast me

A doctor went on vacation for two weeks. He did not find another doctor to cover it. One of his patients with hypertension developed severe headaches. The patient has an appointment with the doctor upon his return from vacation. The patient did not look for another doctor and decided to wait. The patient collapses suddenly and is diagnosed with intracranial hemorrhage. Is the doctor responsible for this patient?
I believe that the doctor is responsible for the patient’s collapse for several reasons.

The doctor went on vacation and didn’t find cover. My understanding of medical ethics is that the doctor has a duty of care to that patient at all times, and this includes transferring care to a suitable colleague with relevant details when leave is taken. This is important as not doing so can have severe implications on the health of patients, from them not being able to seek help from their treating doctor who they trust to a mistake possibly being overseen. If this had been carried out, the patient may have been more likely to ask the ‘temporary’ doctor what was wrong when the headaches occurred, and perhaps the hemorrhage could have been prevented. By not doing so, the doctor breaks his duty of care and acts in an unprofessional and unsafe manner.

It can be argued that an appointment had been arranged upon the doctor’s return from vacation, so he’s adequately looked out for the patient and can’t be held responsible for anything that happens in between. However, I refute this argument as this places the patient in an unfair position of being responsible for anything that occurs to their health, where the doctor could have prevented it by exercising their duty of care.

It can also be argued that the patient should have sought care as soon as he/she experienced severe headaches. However, this again places them in an unfair position - it is unreasonable for them to link severe headaches to a potential hemorrhage, this is what doctors are meant to do and why the public places trust in them to protect their health. This deflects blame from the doctor and doesn’t allow them to take responsibility, which is inappropriate as it doesn’t allow them to learn from the situation.

Hence, in summary the doctor is responsible as he breached his duty of care to the patient by not arranging adequate cover which may have prevented the collapse from occurring. The patient has no responsibility for what occurred, and to say they did would put them in an unfair position and deflect blame from the doctor to the detriment of both parties.

Also, I do think you're a bit harsh when you say "the doctor is responsible as he breached his duty of care to the patient". Instead try: "the doctor should have exercised his experience and been a bit more proactive, as by not doing so..."

 

[Crow]

This thread is ONLY for practicing interview questions and discussing answers and feedback. General questions about interview processes and university-specific interview questions belong elsewhere.