Practice Interview Question Thread

[H2.]

Most universities will display the scenario outside the door and inside the room. So you should have them available to you if you need to refer to it. A lot of students then begin looking at the scenario in front of them instead of the interviewer.

Cheers.
A question off topic, in "what do you say?" questions can you say it in a third person perspective e.g. I would ask her if the children are hers.
Or must you say it in a first person perspective e.g. "These are pretty energetic children you've got here, are they yours?"

 

[garmonbozia]

Cheers.
A question off topic, in "what do you say?" questions can you say it in a third person perspective e.g. I would ask her if the children are hers.
Or must you say it in a first person perspective e.g. "These are pretty energetic children you've got here, are they yours?"

Typically if the question is just along the lines of " what would you say / do in this situation" a third person response (eg "In this situation I would do...") is expected - if they want you to tackle it in the first person this is either specified in the question (eg "Imagine I am the mother, what would you say to me?") or it is a separate follow-up question.

 

[H2.]

Typically if the question is just along the lines of " what would you say / do in this situation" a third person response (eg "In this situation I would do...") is expected - if they want you to tackle it in the first person this is either specified in the question (eg "Imagine I am the mother, what would you say to me?") or it is a separate follow-up question.

Awesome, so would it be safe to say that unless it is a roleplay setting third person repsonse would be fine/expected?

 

[garmonbozia]

Awesome, so would it be safe to say that unless it is a roleplay setting third person repsonse would be fine/expected?

Yes.

 

[whoartthou]

Cheers.
A question off topic, in "what do you say?" questions can you say it in a third person perspective e.g. I would ask her if the children are hers.
Or must you say it in a first person perspective e.g. "These are pretty energetic children you've got here, are they yours?"

Third person unless it's a role play scenario.

 

[H2.]

You are a GP - a 14yr sexually active girl comes to you and says that she is sexually active and that she could not see her usual GP as she believes that he will tell her parents. She says that she will not abstain from sex and asks for the pill and you give it to her. What are your thoughts?

Prompts:

-Some weeks later her mum finds the pills and angrily comes to your practice demanding to speak to you. What do you do?
-What other options would/should you have offered the girl?
-Do the parents have a right to know vs the child's right to privacy?

 

[cap78]

You are a GP - a 14yr sexually active girl comes to you and says that she is sexually active and that she could not see her usual GP as she believes that he will tell her parents. She says that she will not abstain from sex and asks for the pill and you give it to her. What are your thoughts?

Prompts:

-Some weeks later her mum finds the pills and angrily comes to your practice demanding to speak to you. What do you do?
-What other options would/should you have offered the girl?
-Do the parents have a right to know vs the child's right to privacy?

Hi H2, could you tell me where you found this question? I have been trying to find it because I've seen it before as an interview question. Thanks

 

[H2.]

Hi H2, could you tell me where you found this question? I have been trying to find it because I've seen it before as an interview question. Thanks

Hi cap, I would've found it online. I don't remember where unfortunately. Possibly on the Paging Dr. forums.

 

[L_x]

You are a GP - a 14yr sexually active girl comes to you and says that she is sexually active and that she could not see her usual GP as she believes that he will tell her parents. She says that she will not abstain from sex and asks for the pill and you give it to her. What are your thoughts?

Prompts:

-Some weeks later her mum finds the pills and angrily comes to your practice demanding to speak to you. What do you do?
-What other options would/should you have offered the girl?
-Do the parents have a right to know vs the child's right to privacy?

First time answering questions, not quite sure about Q2 but spend some time on Q1 and Q3, any critique, advice and comment is appreciated!

-Some weeks later her mum finds the pills and angrily comes to your practice demanding to speak to you. What do you do?
I would talk to the mother in private and first tries to calm her down by apologising and acknowledging that this would be something hard to accept by the mother. After she had calm down, I would explain to her that her daughter was able to comprehend her actions and made the choice that would cause the least harm to herself - using pills that do not harm the body and prevent pregnancy.

-Do the parents have a right to know vs the child's right to privacy?
Since children are considered not mature enough in many cases to make the correct choice for themselves, many parent would argue that they should have the right to know about their children’s medications and treatments. However, confidentiality and privacy rights should not be dependent on the age of the patient but their competency - their ability to comprehend treatment decisions and recognise consequences. The girl is ‘competent’ - she was capable of making her decisions and is aware of the consequences regarding the pill - therefore her confidentiality and privacy rights should be treated same as adult. The only exceptions regarding this matter is when the child is making a decision that will potentially cause harm to other people, in which case, the breach of confidentiality still depend on the severity of the patient’s decision, but not the age.

 

[whoartthou]

First time answering questions, not quite sure about Q2 but spend some time on Q1 and Q3, any critique, advice and comment is appreciated!

-Some weeks later her mum finds the pills and angrily comes to your practice demanding to speak to you. What do you do?
I would talk to the mother in private and first tries to calm her down by apologising and acknowledging that this would be something hard to accept by the mother. After she had calm down, I would explain to her that her daughter was able to comprehend her actions and made the choice that would cause the least harm to herself - using pills that do not harm the body and prevent pregnancy.

-Do the parents have a right to know vs the child's right to privacy?
Since children are considered not mature enough in many cases to make the correct choice for themselves, many parent would argue that they should have the right to know about their children’s medications and treatments. However, confidentiality and privacy rights should not be dependent on the age of the patient but their competency - their ability to comprehend treatment decisions and recognise consequences. The girl is ‘competent’ - she was capable of making her decisions and is aware of the consequences regarding the pill - therefore her confidentiality and privacy rights should be treated same as adult. The only exceptions regarding this matter is when the child is making a decision that will potentially cause harm to other people, in which case, the breach of confidentiality still depend on the severity of the patient’s decision, but not the age.

-Some weeks later her mum finds the pills and angrily comes to your practice demanding to speak to you. What do you do?
The main issue is to address how the mother's concerns and empathising with her. Why might she be feeling this way? Does she understand the reasons? What are her daughters reasons? I think you could have explored this in more detail.

-Do the parents have a right to know vs the child's right to privacy?
Gillick Competency is what you are talking about. You are exactly right it depends on the child's competency. You can only breach confidentiality if there is potential for significant self-harm or harm to others or if they are unable to protect themselves.

 

[weebuforreal]

Just preparing for interstate interviews...

I'm not sure if there's anything else I can say for this question! In my belief, the shorter the better when explaining a concept because otherwise the person listening might get confused or bored. But at the same time, this would be an eight-minute station, so I might need to speak more? Anyway, any feedback for my answer would be appreciated!

For this question:

Please select one of the following words and explain it in a way that could be understood by someone without a science background. Use an everyday example as part of your explanation.

electricity, hormone, photosynthesis

Photosynthesis is the process by which plants combine carbon dioxide, which is the gas that we breathe out, and water to form sugars and oxygen. The oxygen that they produce is breathed in by animals, including us humans. Photosynthesis also needs sunlight and the plant needs to have green leaves in order to catalyse this process- help it finish more quickly. The reason plants do this is to make their own food- while you and I eat food like apples or chocolate cake to get sugars, plants create sugars to feed themselves. This is called being autotrophic. So, as you can see, photosynthesis is what keeps oxygen in constant supply so we can breathe- now you can see why plants are so important to us!

 

[Maria1287]

Just preparing for interstate interviews...

I'm not sure if there's anything else I can say for this question! In my belief, the shorter the better when explaining a concept because otherwise the person listening might get confused or bored. But at the same time, this would be an eight-minute station, so I might need to speak more? Anyway, any feedback for my answer would be appreciated!

For this question:

Please select one of the following words and explain it in a way that could be understood by someone without a science background. Use an everyday example as part of your explanation.

electricity, hormone, photosynthesis

Photosynthesis is the process by which plants combine carbon dioxide, which is the gas that we breathe out, and water to form sugars and oxygen. The oxygen that they produce is breathed in by animals, including us humans. Photosynthesis also needs sunlight and the plant needs to have green leaves in order to catalyse this process- help it finish more quickly. The reason plants do this is to make their own food- while you and I eat food like apples or chocolate cake to get sugars, plants create sugars to feed themselves. This is called being autotrophic. So, as you can see, photosynthesis is what keeps oxygen in constant supply so we can breathe- now you can see why plants are so important to us!

i think a good way to balance an 8m station with wanting to answer promptly is to take 5-10s to figure out a way of very punchily communicating what you can say in the first and last sentences, with the last as a summary of the rest. i think that your example answer does that pretty well, but i would consider even breaking this up into shorter sentences. the shorter the more memorable in my experience and these simplifying questions just want someone to be able to not get wrapped up in the technicality of the question, if that makes sense. similary, i might offer that there are still more simple ways to explain photosynthesis than you have. my understanding is that the interviewers tend to be looking for simplicity over accuracy. imagine explaining it to someone in like year 5 maybe when you answer the question, and do your best to address any questions you might think could pop up with what you say. this is something that you have done overall well tho, you could imagine someone saying 'what is carbon dioxide' to your first sentence, but youve answered that potential question. I think this is overall a good job, but you could flesh it out perhaps with another example or by asking the interviewer does this make sense to you.

 

[Maria1287]

worth also noting, at the JMP interview at least, that finishing early isn't reflective of failure in any way. If the interviewers haven't gotten enough out of you, they will likely ask a couple more questions to prompt you or give you some opportunity to supplement what you've already said. In saying that, some stations are just such that you finish early, because that's just the way it is. Try to not let it put you off for your next station if at all possible - that's the beauty of MMIs; many stations, many interviewers, and many opportunities to shine ))

 

[weebuforreal]

i think a good way to balance an 8m station with wanting to answer promptly is to take 5-10s to figure out a way of very punchily communicating what you can say in the first and last sentences, with the last as a summary of the rest. i think that your example answer does that pretty well, but i would consider even breaking this up into shorter sentences. the shorter the more memorable in my experience and these simplifying questions just want someone to be able to not get wrapped up in the technicality of the question, if that makes sense. similary, i might offer that there are still more simple ways to explain photosynthesis than you have. my understanding is that the interviewers tend to be looking for simplicity over accuracy. imagine explaining it to someone in like year 5 maybe when you answer the question, and do your best to address any questions you might think could pop up with what you say. this is something that you have done overall well tho, you could imagine someone saying 'what is carbon dioxide' to your first sentence, but youve answered that potential question. I think this is overall a good job, but you could flesh it out perhaps with another example or by asking the interviewer does this make sense to you.

Thank you very much for your detailed feedback. I have bolded parts that I definitely need to take on board mainly for my own reference. I agree that my sentences could be shorter- does anyone know of an effective way to ensure this in the real interview/practise this in speech? I find that being concise is a major issue of mine in general. I could rewrite this answer into shorter sentences, though it wouldn't help me much for the interview, where I'll be seeing new questions and thinking of answers on the spot.
For this scenario, what could I use as another example?
Asking the interviewer if what I said makes sense is definitely something I forgot and will remember for next time!

ETA: Btw, for Monash, what kinds of questions are most common (within the constraints of the NDA, of course c? As in, I get it's MMI, but do they even tend to ask de-technicalisation questions like these at stations? What categories do Monash questions come under generally? Besides motivation? Also, how much/what kinds of GK about the medical field/current affairs is necessary, if this is allowed to be revealed? Could someone please point me to some good resources to find out these GK facts if possible?

 

[weebuforreal]

You are a doctor and your patient has been taking pain medication for his condition which caused numerous side effects. A new drug came out which is safer and the patient seems to be managing better and can almost function normally that he has considered starting work. However, this drug is expensive and the patient is concerned about affording this drug. The government subsidises this drug to patients with epilepsy only. If you write on the prescription that the patient has epilepsy, he can get the drug subsidised. What would you do? What are the ethical implications? What should be the consequences if the doctor wrote the prescription as having epilepsy?

This is certainly a very difficult scenario with multiple factors to consider, primarily the welfare of the patient, the safety of the drug, the cost of the drug and maintaining professional integrity when attempting to obtain government subsidy.

I’m not totally sure if the following paragraph should be included.
[In actual fact, it has not explicitly been stated in the scenario that the patient does not have epilepsy. This should be established first of all through some brief questioning, and if necessary, a professional diagnosis, because if he does, then there is no ethical dilemma in writing him a prescription.]

However, in the likely scenario that he doesn’t have epilepsy, I wouldn’t write him a prescription as it breaches the medical pillar of justice and can have severe consequences for both the doctor’s career and, more importantly, the patient. Writing a dishonest prescription for the patient can impact on the patient’s future encounters with doctors who will likely refer to the patient’s recorded medical history and having a false medical record could lead to improper treatment. The patient may even expect this kind of dishonesty from other doctors in future. Furthermore, public trust in the health profession will be undermined if the public finds out about this incident.

However, I do understand the good intentions behind this act. In fact, for the sake of patient welfare, this does comply with the beneficence and non-maleficence pillars of medical ethics as the doctor is trying to obtain the best outcome for the patient’s health in a way that the patient can afford it.

To achieve this, I would instead ask the patient if he has private health insurance and if they could possibly subsidise the cost. Alternatively, I would endeavour to arrange for the cost of the drug to be paid in instalments.

If the doctor chooses to write a dishonest prescription, consequences should include the doctor’s licence possibly being suspended or even cancelled depending on how severe the offence is considered to be; an investigation carried out against the practice or hospital that the doctor is a part of to ensure that this type of offence hasn’t been committed before and to prevent any possible future offences.

In conclusion, we can acknowledge how multifaceted this ethical dilemma is, and the potentially severe consequences on the doctor, the patient and the medical profession as a whole as a result of this dishonest, unprofessional practice.

Any feedback for this response would be appreciated.

 

[weebuforreal]

A man has been responsible for taking care of his wife who is in a vegetative state for six years after a car accident. She can breathe on her own but that is the extent of her abilities. He requests that her feeding tube is removed. As her physician, what action would you take in this scenario? Why?

Just wondering, for this example scenario, there's so many things that I could think about saying. What would be the limit to talking about the issues in this scenario? Considering this question sounds like it's supposed to take a couple of minutes...

Here are just some of the points that I can recall:

• I would explore the reasons for why the man would like her feeding tube removed, followed by a reminder of why his wife needs the tube
• Capacity to consent --> the wife doesn't since she can only breathe, so husband does have right to make decisions on behalf of wife
• Breach of beneficence --> need to act in best interests of wife
• Possible breach of justice --> need to act within regulations and laws --> assisted suicide is legal in some states (e.g. Victoria), so maybe it's possible to remove the tube with husband's permission (could someone confirm if and how to approach this point?)

 

[Crow]

Breach of beneficence --> need to act in best interests of wife

It can be argued that it’s actually in the wife’s best interests to remove the feeding tube, so be careful how you phrase an answer like that.

assisted suicide is legal in some states (e.g. Victoria), so maybe it's possible to remove the tube with husband's permission (could someone confirm if and how to approach this point?)

You’ll learn about this in medical school but there’s something called the act vs omission distinction; removal of a feeding tube is an omission and is considered legal (I.e. this isn’t considered assisted suicide).

 

[DrDrLMG!]

A man has been responsible for taking care of his wife who is in a vegetative state for six years after a car accident. She can breathe on her own but that is the extent of her abilities. He requests that her feeding tube is removed. As her physician, what action would you take in this scenario? Why?

Just wondering, for this example scenario, there's so many things that I could think about saying. What would be the limit to talking about the issues in this scenario? Considering this question sounds like it's supposed to take a couple of minutes...

Here are just some of the points that I can recall:

• I would explore the reasons for why the man would like her feeding tube removed, followed by a reminder of why his wife needs the tube
• Capacity to consent --> the wife doesn't since she can only breathe, so husband does have right to make decisions on behalf of wife
• Breach of beneficence --> need to act in best interests of wife
• Possible breach of justice --> need to act within regulations and laws --> assisted suicide is legal in some states (e.g. Victoria), so maybe it's possible to remove the tube with husband's permission (could someone confirm if and how to approach this point?)

I had to do an ethics essay on almost this exact topic last year!

Things to consider:

Has there been any changes in the wife’s health? Is she deteriorating? What is the context for the request?

Yes, the husband has been providing her care, but is he her formal substitute decision maker? There are criteria to be met for this to be the case.

If yes: does HE have capacity currently to be making such decisions? Is he fully informed, is he unwell, is he under undue pressure (from other family members, financial, emotional)?

In Tasmania (probably elsewhere), if he is her recognised substitute decision maker, and there are no questions as to his own capacity/functioning, then the decision is deemed to be one the doctor must abide by.

Respect for autonomy of decision making extends to that of the substitute decision maker.

Substitute decision makers have a duty to act in the patient’s “best interests”, but this is a difficult concept and varies from patient to patient.

If you, the doctor, are unsure, you can liaise with, and/or refer the case to The Guardianship Board (or your state’s equivalent).

Removal of a feeding tube wouldn’t be considered assisted suicide.

 

[weebuforreal]

It can be argued that it’s actually in the wife’s best interests to remove the feeding tube, so be careful how you phrase an answer like that.
You’ll learn about this in medical school but there’s something called the act vs omission distinction; removal of a feeding tube is an omission and is considered legal (I.e. this isn’t considered assisted suicide).

Thanks, Crow.

 

[weebuforreal]

I had to do an ethics essay on almost this exact topic last year!

Things to consider:

Has there been any changes in the wife’s health? Is she deteriorating? What is the context for the request?

Yes, the husband has been providing her care, but is he her formal substitute decision maker? There are criteria to be met for this to be the case.

If yes: does HE have capacity currently to be making such decisions? Is he fully informed, is he unwell, is he under undue pressure (from other family members, financial, emotional)?

In Tasmania (probably elsewhere), if he is her recognised substitute decision maker, and there are no questions as to his own capacity/functioning, then the decision is deemed to be one the doctor must abide by.

Respect for autonomy of decision making extends to that of the substitute decision maker.

Substitute decision makers have a duty to act in the patient’s “best interests”, but this is a difficult concept and varies from patient to patient.

If you, the doctor, are unsure, you can liaise with, and/or refer the case to The Guardianship Board (or your state’s equivalent).

Removal of a feeding tube wouldn’t be considered assisted suicide.

Thanks, LMG, for the comprehensive answer.