UCAT: Situational Judgement

sloth

Member
I just did some questions from UCAT question bank.

There is one question where the student interviewing a patient used her handphone to discuss her wedding plans and the patient looked annoyed. Another student noticed this.

The question was Privately inform her that if he sees this behaviour again he would inform the supervising consultant.
Answer: Very Appropriate thing to do.

I thought the answer should be Appropriate but not ideal. I thought the male student was kind of like threatening the female student.

What are your thoughts?
 

chinaski

Regular Member
Do you think it would be "very appropriate"action if it were a female student telling a male student what to do? Or if the students were both the same gender?
 

sloth

Member
Do you think it would be "very appropriate"action if it were a female student telling a male student what to do? Or if the students were both the same gender?

It has got nothing to do with gender! I just couldn't remember the names. I was asking about the scenario and the answers. That's all. Maybe I will come up with some names the next time.
 

Fili

Dentistry Student 🦷
Moderator
I just did some questions from UCAT question bank.

There is one question where the student interviewing a patient used her handphone to discuss her wedding plans and the patient looked annoyed. Another student noticed this.

The question was Privately inform her that if he sees this behaviour again he would inform the supervising consultant.
Answer: Very Appropriate thing to do.

I thought the answer should be Appropriate but not ideal. I thought the male student was kind of like threatening the female student.

What are your thoughts?


I haven't done that many UCAT questions since I'm currently too busy trying to study for my exams but not answering to this thread has been bothering me ...

So ... In my opinion, "very appropriate thing to do" being the correct answer is ideal.
1) You /privately/ inform her - if you did this public then maybe "appropriate but not ideal" should be the answer.
2) You notify her of her mistakes - she really shouldn't be worrying about her own wedding (no matter how big of an event it is) since patients come first + she annoyed the patient.
3) Telling the supervising consultant - you ensure that you are serious about wanting the best for the patient and really enforce to the student that whatever "special" event she has doesn't matter in comparison to the needs of the patient.

I really don't see what he did as a threat. Now, let's say if the guy apologized to the patient for her without telling her, or immediately told the supervising consultant without notifying the student beforehand then "very appropriate" will most likely not be the answer anymore since ...
1) Though you care for the patient, you can't just publicly get in the way especially since it's technically none of your business at that point.
2) Same as above. If you tell the supervising consultant directly before notifying her, you directly get in the way of her business and don't really offer a proper chance for her to straighten up + this is a wedding so it may be a first-time offense which shouldn't be penalized yet.
 

frootloop

House Surgeon
Moderator
Not relevant, but only someone who writes standardized tests would think

'C. Threaten to nark on your colleague to someone who holds a lot of power over their future, because they were texting about their wedding at an admittedly inappropriate time'

Counts as a 'very appropriate thing to do'.
 

garmonbozia

Membered Value
Valued Member
I just did some questions from UCAT question bank.

There is one question where the student interviewing a patient used her handphone to discuss her wedding plans and the patient looked annoyed. Another student noticed this.

The question was Privately inform her that if he sees this behaviour again he would inform the supervising consultant.
Answer: Very Appropriate thing to do.
I would say Very Appropriate based on the fact that he is directly resolving the situation in a polite and relatively non-confrontational manner ("resolving" the situation, in the eyes of the examiners at least...)
I thought the answer should be Appropriate but not ideal. I thought the male student was kind of like threatening the female student.
I always find it helpful in Situational Judgement not to overthink the scenario too much - in this case, gender doesn't seem to be a crucial factor in the scenario at first glance, so it probably isn't - and obviously colleagues should be dealt with professionally in the same manner regardless of their gender! I hope that helps.
 

Q3

Regular Member
Not relevant, but only someone who writes standardized tests would think

'C. Threaten to nark on your colleague to someone who holds a lot of power over their future, because they were texting about their wedding at an admittedly inappropriate time'

Counts as a 'very appropriate thing to do'.

See I would have chosen 'appropriate but not ideal' for that reason. In reality most people, if they were to do anything, would just talk to the colleague about it and not involve anyone else unless it was happening continually.
 

chinaski

Regular Member
See I would have chosen 'appropriate but not ideal' for that reason. In reality most people, if they were to do anything, would just talk to the colleague about it and not involve anyone else unless it was happening continually.

I think this is what the question was driving at, but incredibly poorly. It's looking to see that you would escalate the matter if there was a pattern of repeated poor behaviour. Unfortunately they have distilled it down to two students of equal (lowly) standing and rank, with one dobbing on the other (and escalating quite aggressively) if their colleague step out of line more than just that once. Stuffing up twice on a pretty minor point isn't a pattern of repeated behaviour, and in real life, escalating that scenario to a consultant would be seen as heavy-handed and quite petty.

A better question stem would illustrate a pattern of poor behaviour much more clearly, and pick an offensive behaviour that is more consequential and therefore justified in escalating to that level (eg student doing things that would potentially lead to harm).
 

Cathay

🚂Train Driver🚆
Emeritus Staff
I think this is what the question was driving at, but incredibly poorly. It's looking to see that you would escalate the matter if there was a pattern of repeated poor behaviour.
I think that's a great point - perhaps this question would've been better as two separate questions. Firstly to see that your first course of action is to discuss the matter privately; and secondly to see that if there was a pattern of repeated poor behaviour that you would escalate it. It certainly feels like they've tried too hard to get those two parts into the same question, only for the answer to seem rather extreme for what the question was asking, at face value.
 

weebuforreal

stats noob and a definite weaboo
Hi guys,
What exactly are the roles of med students, interns and junior doctors? What are they allowed and not allowed to do? E.g. is it really true that med students are allowed to assess patient progress without a senior colleague present but given their permission? I find this would be very valuable info for some SJT questions. Preferably, I'd like to hear from some real medical professionals/students, of course! :p
 

Cathay

🚂Train Driver🚆
Emeritus Staff
Disclaimer: this is from my clinical years at med school, in New Zealand, so it may not be representative of, you know, Australia and beyond; it has also been about 4 years since I was at med school so my memory of things may not be 100% accurate.

A typical inpatient medical team, in a New Zealand hospital, usually consists of the Consultant (senior doctor, the full-blown specialist), the Registrar (above the House Officer and below the Consultant, generally undertaking specialty training), the House Officer / House Surgeon (junior doctor, usually within the first 2/3 years out of med school).

I believe the word "intern" usually refers to first-year house officers? In NZ it's a little confusing because final year (6th year) med students are known as Trainee Interns or TIs, and are essentially stepping up and learning the ropes to become a House Officer (which is what they become after 6th year.) (Also the word "intern" is not really used in New Zealand at all. Your mileage may differ in Australia.)

"Med students" in the rest of this post will refer to medical students in clinical years. In NZ that means 4th and 5th year medical students. On passing the big 5th year exams and progressing to 6th year, they become Trainee Interns and focus more on becoming acquainted with and prepared for the House Officer job they will soon step into, rather than simply learning medical knowledge, processes (taking histories, examining patients etc), and clinical thinking.

The Consultant is the senior medical officer in charge of the team, and patients are officially under the Consultant's care (i.e. under the consultant's name), that is to say, the consultant has the final say on what happens to patients, although they generally don't stay on the wards after ward rounds - they have outpatient clinics, procedure sessions (things like endoscopy sessions, or, for surgeons, surgery), multidisciplinary meetings, office hours, research, teaching activities, etc.

Ward rounds happen at the start of the day, and are generally led by the consultant, with all members of the team in attendance. The team will go around the ward (literally making the rounds) seeing all the inpatients under the consultant's care, the consultant will generally be the one asking questions (both to the patient and to other members of the team), examining the patient, and coming up with a plan as to how to proceed - whether to order more tests, make treatment changes, or monitor progress.

The Registrar is, in some ways, an apprentice of sorts to the Consultant. Registrars will often be on the specialty training programme, and will therefore be generally knowledgeable - though not as vastly knowledgeable or experienced as the consultants. Registrars will often attend clinics etc with consultants, but may otherwise be available on the wards.

The House Officer is the most junior doctor of the team, having generally graduated from med school in the last 3 years or so. It is important to note that House Officers are qualified doctors, and are able to prescribe medication, order tests, and generally perform "doctorly duties" independently. This means that House Officer will implement the plans made by the consultant during ward round, whether this be ordering tests, writing up (prescribing) medications in the patient's "drug chart", or whatever was decided on to further the patient's progress towards discharge. (The House Officer also writes up discharge summaries, medical certificates for time off work, and other paperwork.)

Any Trainee Interns and/or Medical Students attached to the team are ranked below House Officer. Being that TIs and Med Students are not qualified doctors, they do tasks under the direction of the qualified doctors. I haven't been a TI myself so I don't know whether every patient a TI sees must consent, but certainly as a med student, any patients we see will have been picked out by the team (they may have a "classical presentation" of a condition, or a good example of a clinical sign to be found by examination, and most importantly they tend to be friendlier patients who have consented to being seen/examined by med students.)

The teams on each specialty take turns at being "on call" or "on acutes" or "on take"; when it is "on call day" or "acutes day" or "on take day" for a particular team, all patients referred to the particular specialty (e.g. cardiology)will be admitted (taken) under that team. The House Officer and Registrar for the team will generally be working late (8am-11pm instead of 8am-5pm); and the House Officer will generally see and assess each incoming patient first, prepare relevant paperwork, writing some notes for an immediate plan (which usually calls for "reg review" - for the registrar to review the patient). The registrar will review the House Officer's notes, see the patient themselves, and make decisions on further investigation and/or treatment. When there is a med student attached to the team, assuming the patient consents, the med student may see the patient initially and write up notes if able; the student will then present the case to either the House Officer or the Registrar for review and decisions. (This is a general overview of the process - each team may well work differently from the next, and each specialty different from the next. I'm drawing heavily on my time with General Medicine as a 5th year student here.)

Where's the consultant, you ask? Well, the consultant is not usually present on the wards during the Acutes Day itself - but they will be available to be called in for tricky cases requiring urgent senior review. If not needed urgently, the consultant will arrive the next morning at post-acutes / post-take ward rounds to see all the patients admitted the previous day; during this ward round, each patient will be "presented" to the consultant (in the form of a summary), by the Registrar, House Officer, and even Med Student. (As Med Students we usually got assigned a patient or two to see the previous day, and we would then present "our" patients to the consultant as a learning exercise. This is an important part of being a med student - and being a junior doctor - to see and assess a patient and communicate the issues/findings to a more senior colleague in the proper way enabling decisions to be made.) The consultant will then take the team around, see all the patients, examine them as needed, and make plans for each one. The Registrar and House Officer will then go about implementing all the plans and treating all the patients.

The following non-acutes days will then involve ward rounds seeing all the patients still in hospital from previous acutes day(s) and treating them with the goal of safe discharge from hospital; and the cycle begins again when the team is on acutes again, a few days later.




My apologies, this turned much longer than I expected. I guess I should answer your main question - yes, a clinical years medical student is generally allowed to see/examine patients without a qualified doctor present, although generally one of the doctors (House Officer, Registrar or sometimes even the Consultant) will ask their permission first for the student to see/examine them. The purpose of the exercise will generally be to practice clinical skills - in the area of history taking and/or physical examination. Note that I'm generally talking about the more benign/routine examinations like chest, abdomen, neuro, musculoskeletal, etc. Sensitive examinations (such as examining of breasts, genital area, etc) will either see the student in an observational capacity (with patient's permission), or, at most, performing the examination under direct supervision (again with patient's permission), or excluded altogether.

Note also: I quit at the start of the O&G run, and have no idea how things work there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A1

lottodo

Member
This question is about partial marks for situational judgement. I done official UCAT web page mock exam and I noted that they are not giving partial marks for some answers as Medify does. This means we get high marks fro Medify but not sure about actual exam.

My question regarding the partial marks system for the Situational Judgement section is as below:

I understand that if I select, for example in an appropriateness question, D (a very inappropriate thing to do) but the answer is actually C (inappropriate, but not awful) then I receive partial marks. I also understand that I would receive partial marks for selecting A when the answer is B, and vice versa.

However, I was just wondering if I would still receive partial marks for selecting B when the answer is actually C, and vice versa.

Is any body know the answer or only UCAT officials know about it?
 

garmonbozia

Membered Value
Valued Member
This question is about partial marks for situational judgement. I done official UCAT web page mock exam and I noted that they are not giving partial marks for some answers as Medify does. This means we get high marks fro Medify but not sure about actual exam.

My question regarding the partial marks system for the Situational Judgement section is as below:

I understand that if I select, for example in an appropriateness question, D (a very inappropriate thing to do) but the answer is actually C (inappropriate, but not awful) then I receive partial marks. I also understand that I would receive partial marks for selecting A when the answer is B, and vice versa.

However, I was just wondering if I would still receive partial marks for selecting B when the answer is actually C, and vice versa.

Is any body know the answer or only UCAT officials know about it?
Partial marks are only awarded if your answer is on the same "side" of the scale - eg if the answer was B, then A would get partial marks, but not C
 

lottodo

Member
Thanks. (Content removed)
Anyway, Where did you get this info: "Partial marks are only awarded if your answer is on the same "side" of the scale ". The official web site says:
partial marks awarded if your response is close to the correct answer. In some scenarios C is closer to B. I am just worried coz I would not get good marks if the answer is the same side of the scale. I'm worried.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hello!
the UCAT SJT was marked in bands before switching to a scaled score between 300-900. I performed okay on medify and official mocks (for me, the style of SJ was very different from official and medify practice questions) and was anticipating a better mark than what I got.

I've noted that the results that have been posted, all of them were between 500-670, has anyone got a higher mark than this?

I was very worried about my result as I know that SJT results are important in admissions into medicine in the UK and believe that that will be similar in aus.
 

fizz

Lurker
hello!
the UCAT SJT was marked in bands before switching to a scaled score between 300-900. I performed okay on medify and official mocks (for me, the style of SJ was very different from official and medify practice questions) and was anticipating a better mark than what I got.

I've noted that the results that have been posted, all of them were between 500-670, has anyone got a higher mark than this?

I was very worried about my result as I know that SJT results are important in admissions into medicine in the UK and believe that that will be similar in aus.


Hi failedlobster, I sat my UCAT today and didn’t get a great result, however my SJT was 719. I was under the impression that most uni’s do not consider SJT in the selection process (or at least give it very little weighting). I could be wrong though :)
 

Adamus

Member
hello!
the UCAT SJT was marked in bands before switching to a scaled score between 300-900. I performed okay on medify and official mocks (for me, the style of SJ was very different from official and medify practice questions) and was anticipating a better mark than what I got.

I've noted that the results that have been posted, all of them were between 500-670, has anyone got a higher mark than this?

I was very worried about my result as I know that SJT results are important in admissions into medicine in the UK and believe that that will be similar in aus.
I feel very much the same! Got a good enough UCAT but only a 580 SJT despite 60/69's in my mocks and have been worrying that it might hurt my chances into med through monash undergrad. If anyone gets any concrete details about monash SJT that would be great. From what I can see however, i'd suggest not stressing too much about it in the end since it seems the section is far more spread out than you can think. It's also not *you need band 1 to get in*, as even in UK unis, most universities didn't care as long as you got band 3 and above. I know some indivuduals who got far below 500 and some who got far above 800.
 

aidin

Member
Hey guys
(Content removed) partial marks for giving "important" rather than "of minor importance" (the correct answer) and vice versa. I was under the impression that this would be counted as incorrect in the UCAT, am I wrong?
Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top