Browse five complete evidence-linked scenarios without an account. Create a free account to unlock the complete 26-module communication library and 10% of the MRCP question bank. Fixed-term full-bank passes are available separately.
No payment card required. Account access and marketing permission are separate; Clinora does not add you to marketing email through sign-in.
WHY THIS LAB
From a best answer to a safer conversation.
The free library is Clinora’s demonstration—not a stripped-down brochure. Use complete scenarios, model conversations, knowledge checks and Evidence Passports before deciding whether the paid MRCP question bank is worth subscribing to.
MODULE 01 · APPROX. 18 MIN
Explaining results and clinical uncertainty
Explain an abnormal result honestly, distinguish what is known from what remains uncertain, and make the next step explicit.
Samira Khan, a fictional 46-year-old teacher, attends to discuss mildly abnormal liver blood tests found during a medication review. She feels well. The pattern is non-specific, there is no immediate danger signal, and repeat tests plus an ultrasound are planned. Samira asks, “Does this mean I have something serious?”
No real patient or identifiable patient information is used.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Separate the result, its possible meaning and the limits of current knowledge.
Use absolute, plain-language risk communication without false reassurance.
Agree a monitoring plan, named responsibility and a route back if circumstances change.
STRUCTURED MODEL CONVERSATION
See the purpose behind each line
Clinician
Before I explain the numbers, what have you been most worried they might mean?
Elicit the person’s concern before supplying information.
Patient
I saw ‘abnormal’ and thought it might be cancer.
Clinician
I can understand why that word was alarming. The tests show a small change in two liver enzymes. They do not, by themselves, diagnose cancer or any single condition.
Clinician
What I know today is that you are well and there is no result that needs emergency treatment. What I do not yet know is whether this is temporary, medicine-related or due to another liver condition.
Clinician
The useful next step is to repeat the blood tests in four weeks and arrange an ultrasound. I will review both results and contact you. If you have not heard within one week of the final test, please contact the practice.
Clinician
Could you tell me, in your own words, what the result means and what will happen next? I want to check that I explained it clearly.
PHRASES TO USE
“The result is abnormal, but it does not yet tell us one definite cause.”
“Here is what we know, what remains uncertain and how we will reduce that uncertainty.”
“There is no sign today that you need emergency treatment.”
“I will take responsibility for reviewing the next results; this is when and how you should expect to hear.”
PHRASES TO AVOID
“It is probably nothing.”
It minimises concern and offers reassurance without a plan.
“Your LFTs are deranged.”
Jargon and emotive wording can increase anxiety without adding meaning.
“We cannot know, so we just have to wait.”
It presents uncertainty as passive rather than managed.
“No news is good news.”
It leaves responsibility for test follow-up unsafe and unclear.
COMMON COMMUNICATION AND SAFETY ERRORS
Listing a long differential diagnosis before asking what the person already understands or fears.
Conflating a test abnormality with a diagnosis.
Using vague probability words without context or numbers when reliable numbers exist.
Failing to name who will review the result, by when and what happens if contact is missed.
BEST-OF-FIVE KNOWLEDGE CHECK
Test the communication decision
SELF-ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Could I do this reliably?
REFLECTIVE LEARNING
Where do I tend to hide uncertainty behind jargon or over-reassurance, and what sentence will I use differently in my next results conversation?
This note stays on this device and is not sent to Clinora.
CONNECT KNOWLEDGE TO COMMUNICATION
Continue with related MRCP questions
Use the question bank to revisit the clinical science and decisions behind this conversation.
Daniel Okoro, a fictional 62-year-old delivery driver with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, is considering an elective injection. It may provide temporary relief, but benefit is uncertain and there are reasonable alternatives including physiotherapy, analgesic review and no procedure now. Daniel says he needs to stay mobile for work and is worried about needles.
No real patient or identifiable patient information is used.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Introduce choice and include reasonable alternatives, including no intervention now.
Explore outcomes and risks that matter to the individual rather than assuming priorities.
Check capacity, voluntariness and understanding, then document the decision proportionately.
STRUCTURED MODEL CONVERSATION
See the purpose behind each line
Clinician
There is more than one reasonable way forward, including not having an injection today. Would it be helpful to compare them?
Patient
Yes. I need to keep working, but I dislike needles and do not want something risky.
Clinician
The injection may reduce pain for a time, but it does not repair the joint and not everyone benefits. Physiotherapy and adjusting pain treatment avoid a procedure, though improvement may be gradual. We can also pause and decide later.
Clinician
For you, is quicker possible relief more important than avoiding the injection, or would you prefer a non-procedure option first?
Patient
I would rather try physiotherapy first if delaying the injection will not close that option.
Clinician
That is a reasonable choice. The injection remains an option. Before we agree the plan, could you talk me through the alternatives as you understand them and why physiotherapy fits you best?
PHRASES TO USE
“There is more than one reasonable option, including doing nothing different for now.”
“What outcome matters most to you, and which risk or burden would be hardest to accept?”
“My recommendation is based on these reasons, but I do not want to pressure you.”
“You can change your mind; let us agree what would prompt us to revisit the decision.”
PHRASES TO AVOID
“Just sign here.”
A signature records a process; it does not create informed, voluntary consent.
“This is what I would do.”
It can substitute the clinician’s values for the person’s priorities.
“There is no risk.”
No intervention is entirely risk-free, and material risks require honest discussion.
“If you refuse, your knee will get worse.”
Pressuring language undermines voluntariness and may misrepresent uncertainty.
COMMON COMMUNICATION AND SAFETY ERRORS
Presenting a preferred treatment before establishing that a choice exists.
Reciting standard risks without discovering which consequences matter to this person.
Treating capacity as global rather than decision- and time-specific.
Using a consent form as a substitute for dialogue, understanding and voluntariness.
BEST-OF-FIVE KNOWLEDGE CHECK
Test the communication decision
SELF-ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Could I do this reliably?
REFLECTIVE LEARNING
Think of one recent consent conversation. Whose priorities shaped the final decision, and what evidence supports your answer?
This note stays on this device and is not sent to Clinora.
CONNECT KNOWLEDGE TO COMMUNICATION
Continue with related MRCP questions
Use the question bank to revisit the clinical science and decisions behind this conversation.
Leo Martin, a fictional 29-year-old warehouse worker, is assessed with a likely self-limiting respiratory infection. His observations are reassuring, he can drink, and there is no current indication for hospital referral. The diagnosis is not certain at this early stage, so deterioration and diagnostic evolution must be safety-netted.
No real patient or identifiable patient information is used.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
State the expected course while acknowledging that the clinical picture may change.
Give observable red flags, a time threshold and the correct level of help for each.
Check practical ability to follow the plan and document safety-netting clearly.
STRUCTURED MODEL CONVERSATION
See the purpose behind each line
Clinician
Your assessment today is reassuring and this is most likely a viral infection, but symptoms can change. I want us to agree exactly what you should do if they do.
Clinician
Call 999 now if you become severely short of breath, collapse, become confused, or your lips or skin look blue or grey. Seek same-day urgent advice through your GP or NHS 111 if breathing becomes harder, you cannot keep fluids down, you pass much less urine, or you are getting rapidly worse.
Clinician
If you are not beginning to improve over the next three days, arrange a review even if none of those red flags occur.
Clinician
Do you have a phone, transport and someone who could help if you became more unwell?
Patient
Yes. My partner is at home tonight.
Clinician
Please tell me what changes would make you call 999, and what you would do if you simply were not improving.
PHRASES TO USE
“The findings are reassuring today, but they are a snapshot and the illness may evolve.”
“If this specific change happens, seek this level of help within this timeframe.”
“If you are not improving by this named time, arrange reassessment even without a red flag.”
“Is there anything practical that could stop you following this plan?”
PHRASES TO AVOID
“Come back if you feel worse.”
‘Worse’ is subjective and gives no action, destination or timeframe.
“It is only viral.”
It converts a likely working diagnosis into false certainty.
“Go to A&E if worried.”
It gives no observable threshold and may over- or under-triage.
“You know the usual red flags.”
It assumes knowledge and fails to make the safety plan testable.
COMMON COMMUNICATION AND SAFETY ERRORS
Providing red flags without saying whether to call 999, seek same-day review or book routine follow-up.
Giving a long generic list that the person cannot remember or apply.
Omitting a time-based review point for failure to improve.
Not checking access, support, language, health literacy or the person’s understanding.
BEST-OF-FIVE KNOWLEDGE CHECK
Test the communication decision
SELF-ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Could I do this reliably?
REFLECTIVE LEARNING
Rewrite one safety-netting phrase you commonly use so that it names the trigger, timeframe and route to help.
This note stays on this device and is not sent to Clinora.
CONNECT KNOWLEDGE TO COMMUNICATION
Continue with related MRCP questions
Use the question bank to revisit the clinical science and decisions behind this conversation.
Diagnose why a medicine plan is not working without blame, communicate benefit and harm honestly, reconcile the whole regimen and co-design a specific, monitored plan the person can actually follow.
Amina Shah, a fictional 57-year-old school administrator, was offered atorvastatin after cardiovascular-risk assessment. She wants to reduce her chance of myocardial infarction and stroke but has taken three of the last seven doses. She has no muscle symptoms. An online story about rhabdomyolysis frightened her; rotating shifts make the evening dose easy to forget; she recently began an over-the-counter supplement and sometimes uses grapefruit juice. Her repeat prescription is also due while she will be caring for her mother away from home. She expects to be criticised and asks whether taking the tablets irregularly is safer than taking them every day.
No real patient or identifiable patient information is used.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Establish what Amina actually takes, including dose changes, interruptions, non-prescribed products and medicines obtained elsewhere, using a normalising and time-specific approach.
Distinguish intentional barriers such as beliefs and feared harm from unintentional barriers such as routines, access, dexterity, cognition or regimen complexity.
Explain personalised benefit, common effects, rare serious harm and uncertainty in a way that supports an informed decision rather than compliance.
Check clinical safety, interactions and monitoring before simplifying or changing treatment, then match each intervention to an identified barrier.
Agree one explicit plan with ownership, monitoring, symptom actions, review timing and a method for checking whether it worked.
STRUCTURED MODEL CONVERSATION
See the purpose behind each line
Clinician
Amina, I ask everyone because medicine-taking is difficult for many people and I do not want to make assumptions. In the last seven days, on which days did you take the atorvastatin, and were there any days you changed the dose or decided not to take it?
Normalising, time-bounded behavioural questions elicit partial dosing and deliberate changes more reliably than a yes-or-no adherence question.
Patient
I took three. Sometimes I forgot after a late shift, and sometimes I chose not to because the muscle-damage story frightened me.
Clinician
Thank you—that gives us two different problems to solve. Tell me what the story said, what you think the medicine might do to you, and what would make its possible benefit worthwhile. Then we can look separately at the shift pattern.
Belief-driven and practical non-adherence require different interventions; both are explored before advice is offered.
Patient
I want to avoid a stroke, but I do not want permanent muscle damage. I have no pain now. I also started a supplement, and I drink grapefruit juice most mornings.
Clinician
The statin is intended to reduce your cardiovascular risk over years; it does not guarantee prevention. Muscle pain can occur, but the extra risk attributable to the statin is small and severe muscle injury is extremely uncommon. If you develop unexplained muscle pain, tenderness or weakness, contact us so we can assess it rather than stopping and restarting repeatedly without a plan. Severe weakness, dark urine or marked illness needs urgent assessment.
The explanation separates purpose, uncertainty, common symptoms, rare serious harm and proportionate action without absolute reassurance.
Clinician
Before we agree anything, I need the name and ingredients of the supplement and a complete list of prescribed, pharmacy and online products. Some medicines, foods and supplements can interact with statins. I will also check that the recommended baseline assessment and follow-up blood tests are complete.
Adherence support does not bypass prescribing safety, interaction review or monitoring.
Patient
Could I just take it on the evenings I remember?
Clinician
Irregular self-dosing makes the benefit less reliable and does not give us a clear way to judge tolerance. The options include continuing the agreed daily dose with a routine linked to your shifts, changing the timing if clinically suitable, or reviewing dose or medicine if you develop a genuine problem. Doing nothing for now is also an option, with the consequence that you would not receive the expected risk reduction. Which option fits your priorities?
The clinician compares realistic options, including no treatment, and explains the consequence of intermittent self-adjustment without coercion.
Patient
I want to try daily treatment. A phone reminder will not help when I am working, but keeping it with my toothbrush might. I need the prescription before I travel.
Clinician
Our agreed plan is one tablet daily at the clinically agreed time, linked to brushing your teeth; the pharmacy will help arrange supply before travel. You will send the supplement details today and check before starting new medicines or supplements. We will review your lipid profile and liver transaminases two to three months after starting consistently. Contact us sooner for unexplained muscle symptoms, and seek urgent help for severe symptoms or dark urine. Could you talk me through the plan and what you will do if it becomes difficult?
A specific co-designed plan addresses identified barriers, states monitoring and contingency, and uses teach-back to test understanding.
CONSULTANT FEEDBACK · MODEL TEACHING
Do not label Amina 'non-compliant'. First establish the factual regimen: what she takes, when, how often, any dose reduction or interruption, and every prescribed, non-prescribed, herbal, supplement or externally obtained product. Reconcile this with available records while recognising that dispensing data cannot prove ingestion. Diagnose the barrier before prescribing a solution. Her fear of harm is intentional non-adherence; her rotating shift, travel and supply problem are unintentional barriers. A generic reminder addresses neither unless she says it would help. Explain the medicine's purpose and the likely benefit in the context of her baseline risk, then separate common symptoms, rare serious harm and the action each requires. Do not dismiss online information or invoke a nocebo effect as a reason not to investigate symptoms. For statins, NICE advises that associated muscle symptoms are a small risk and severe muscle effects are extremely rare; unexplained symptoms require assessment and creatine kinase measurement. Check the complete medication and supplement list, interactions, baseline assessment and monitoring before recommending simplification or rechallenge. Offer reasonable options, including no treatment, and document Amina's informed preference. Convert the decision into an operational plan: exact medicine and regimen, linked routine or practical support chosen by her, supply arrangements, what not to change without advice, symptom thresholds, tests, named ownership and a review date. At review, ask again without blame, assess whether the intervention solved the identified barrier, check benefit and harm, and revise the decision if her circumstances or preferences have changed.
PHRASES TO USE
“Many people miss or change doses sometimes. In the last seven days, what did you actually take?”
“Was that mainly a decision because of concerns, or was something making the plan difficult in practice—or both?”
“Let us separate the expected benefit, common effects, rare serious harms and exactly what to do if symptoms occur.”
“Please include prescribed medicines, pharmacy products, supplements, herbal products and anything obtained online or elsewhere.”
“Which of these options best fits what matters to you, including the option not to start or continue today?”
“Our plan is this exact regimen, this support, these tests and this review date; please tell me how you will carry it out and when you will contact us.”
PHRASES TO AVOID
“You need to be more compliant.”
The label is judgemental, hides the cause of missed doses and treats agreement as obedience rather than an informed decision.
“Statins are completely safe.”
Absolute reassurance is inaccurate and deprives the person of a meaningful plan for recognising and responding to harm.
“The internet story is nonsense.”
Dismissal damages trust and prevents exploration of the belief driving the decision.
“Just use a pill box and an alarm.”
Untargeted interventions fail when the barrier is fear, supply, cost, cognition, dexterity, regimen complexity or an unsafe interaction.
“If you refuse, the consequences are your responsibility.”
Coercive blame undermines informed choice, future disclosure and continuity of care.
“Take it when you remember.”
Generic advice may be unsafe or ineffective; missed-dose instructions depend on the medicine and must be specific and authoritative.
COMMON COMMUNICATION AND SAFETY ERRORS
Recording 'non-adherent' without establishing the actual medicine-taking behaviour and timeframe.
Failing to distinguish belief-driven decisions from practical barriers or assuming only one cause.
Quoting relative benefit without baseline context, uncertainty or the option of no treatment.
Listing adverse effects without their likelihood, seriousness and required action.
Dismissing reported symptoms or online concerns instead of assessing them and explaining evidence.
Offering adherence aids before checking prescribing safety, interactions, monitoring and regimen appropriateness.
Giving generic missed-dose or stop-start advice for a high-risk or medicine-specific situation.
Treating supply, affordability, disability, language or cognition as a lack of motivation.
Ending without an exact regimen, tailored support, monitoring, symptom plan, ownership and review measure.
BEST-OF-FIVE KNOWLEDGE CHECK
Test the communication decision
SELF-ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Could I do this reliably?
REFLECTIVE LEARNING
Choose one recent patient labelled 'non-adherent'. What did you actually establish about behaviour, belief, capability and access—and what specific question would reveal the missing cause next time?
This note stays on this device and is not sent to Clinora.
CONNECT KNOWLEDGE TO COMMUNICATION
Continue with related MRCP questions
Use the question bank to revisit the clinical science and decisions behind this conversation.
Listening and responding to deterioration concerns
Turn a patient, relative or colleague's concern into an immediate safety response: reassess, treat threats, make a precise escalation request, overcome hierarchy and close the review loop.
Patrick Lewis, a fictional 71-year-old inpatient receiving treatment for pneumonia, is quieter and more confused than two hours ago. His daughter, Ruth, says his breathing looks different. A healthcare assistant reports that he needed help to sit up and has passed little urine. His most recent documented NEWS2 was 3, but it predates these changes. You are the ward doctor. When you arrive, Patrick is drowsy but rousable, respiratory rate 29/min, oxygen saturation 91% on 2 litres/min, pulse 112/min, blood pressure 92/58 mmHg and temperature 38.4°C.
No real patient or identifiable patient information is used.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Recognise concern about change as a clinical trigger and begin an immediate structured reassessment rather than debate the previous score.
Identify and treat immediate threats, repeat complete observations, interpret the trajectory and establish an explicit monitoring and review plan.
Escalate with a concise problem representation, urgency, specific request and agreed response time, then escalate again if the response is delayed or dismissive.
Explain actions and uncertainty to the patient and relative, use local independent rapid-review routes appropriately and document ownership and loop closure.
STRUCTURED MODEL CONVERSATION
See the purpose behind each line
Clinician
Ruth, thank you for speaking up. You know what is usual for your father. Tell me exactly what has changed, when you first noticed it and whether it is continuing to worsen.
A relative's longitudinal knowledge may identify deterioration before a threshold is reached; the response validates the signal without substituting it for assessment.
Relative
He was talking normally after lunch. Now he keeps drifting off, his breathing is faster and he has hardly passed urine. This is not him.
Clinician
I am concerned too. I am going to assess his airway, breathing, circulation and neurological state now, repeat a complete set of observations and start immediate treatment for any threats. Please stay nearby; I will update you after the first assessment.
The candidate states concern, moves to ABCDE and gives a near-term communication commitment rather than offering reassurance.
Clinician
Patrick, I am Dr Shah. You seem more unwell, so I am checking your breathing and circulation and calling for urgent help. I will explain each step as we go.
Even when cognition is impaired, address the patient, communicate simply and preserve dignity while urgent care proceeds.
Colleague
The earlier NEWS2 was only 3. The registrar says they are tied up and suggests another set of observations in an hour.
Clinician
That score predates new confusion, hypoxaemia, tachypnoea and hypotension. My concern and the current physiology require an urgent response now. Please activate the local emergency deterioration pathway and ask the registrar and critical-care or outreach clinician to attend. I will stay with Patrick, begin treatment within my competence and call the consultant if the response is not immediate.
A precise, graded escalation request makes urgency, requested expertise and the fallback route explicit; hierarchy does not close the concern.
Clinician
My SBAR is: Patrick Lewis, 71, admitted with pneumonia, has deteriorated over two hours. He is newly confused, respiratory rate 29, saturation 91% on 2 litres, pulse 112 and blood pressure 92/58. I am treating immediate threats and need senior and critical-care assessment now for suspected acute deterioration, with a decision on level of care. Please confirm who is coming and the expected arrival time.
The escalation contains identification, trajectory, discriminating findings, actions already taken and a specific ask with closed-loop confirmation.
Relative
What if nobody comes? We tried to raise concerns earlier.
Clinician
I will not wait passively. I am escalating through the emergency pathway and will remain responsible until help arrives. If you feel your concern is still not being addressed, this hospital may also have a separate rapid-review route such as Martha's Rule; I will show you the local process. It complements, but does not replace, the emergency response already under way.
The clinician owns escalation and explains the independent route accurately without shifting responsibility onto the family.
Clinician
Ruth, the team is attending now. We are treating Patrick while we investigate the cause and decide the safest level of care. I will update you again in 20 minutes, or sooner if the plan changes. I will record what you noticed, the observations, who was called, when they responded and who owns the next review.
The close provides truthful uncertainty, a timed update, named ownership and documentation of the entire safety loop.
CONSULTANT FEEDBACK · MODEL TEACHING
The central skill is not reciting NEWS2 or naming Martha's Rule; it is converting concern into reliable action. Start with the patient: call for help when needed, use ABCDE, repeat a complete and reliable observation set, compare with baseline and trajectory, and treat immediate threats within competence. A low or old aggregate score never vetoes clinical concern. Escalation should carry a brief problem representation, the change over time, important physiology, actions already taken, the level of urgency and a definite request. Ask who will attend and by when. If a senior response is dismissive or delayed, restate the risk, use the emergency or critical-care pathway and escalate further rather than documenting that somebody was informed. A ceiling-of-treatment or DNACPR decision does not mean no assessment or no treatment: clarify the agreed limits, treat reversible problems within them and seek an appropriate senior decision. Keep Patrick and Ruth informed without promising an outcome. Martha's Rule is a locally implemented independent rapid-review route in England for unresolved concerns about deterioration; it is not a single national telephone number, a general complaint route, a guaranteed intensive-care transfer or a substitute for ordinary emergency escalation. Close the loop by documenting the concern, assessment, response, treatment, decision-maker, monitoring frequency, review time, escalation ceiling and communication with the patient or family.
PHRASES TO USE
“Thank you for speaking up. What is different from usual, when did it change and is it getting worse?”
“The earlier score predates this change; I am reassessing now and escalating on the current physiology and clinical concern.”
“My immediate priorities are these threats; these treatments are under way, and I need this level of review now.”
“Please confirm who is attending and by what time. If that response does not happen, I will escalate again.”
“A treatment ceiling guides the appropriate level of intervention; it does not mean that reversible deterioration is ignored.”
“I will update you at this time, and this named clinician will own the next review.”
PHRASES TO AVOID
“His NEWS2 is only 3, so he is safe.”
NEWS2 supplements clinical judgement; an old or low score cannot exclude deterioration and clinical concern itself can trigger a response.
“The registrar knows, so my job is done.”
Sending a message is not closed-loop escalation. The clinician must confirm the response and escalate again if it is inadequate.
“You are understandably anxious.”
Used as the main response, it reframes clinically useful concern as emotion and risks diagnostic dismissal.
“He is DNACPR, so there is nothing more to do.”
DNACPR concerns cardiopulmonary resuscitation; assessment and proportionate treatment must follow the person's goals and agreed ceiling.
“Call Martha's Rule if you are unhappy.”
This transfers responsibility to the family and misrepresents a rapid-review pathway as a complaint service.
“Someone will review him soon.”
There is no named responder, urgency, expected arrival time or fallback if review does not occur.
COMMON COMMUNICATION AND SAFETY ERRORS
Debating or recalculating an earlier score before assessing a newly unwell patient.
Failing to call for help, use ABCDE or treat an immediate threat while arranging senior review.
Accepting incomplete, implausible or stale observations without repeating and checking them.
Escalating without stating the trajectory, important findings, urgency, actions taken and a specific request.
Treating a message sent or telephone advice received as completion of the escalation loop.
Allowing hierarchy, workload or a dismissive first response to delay rescue.
Equating DNACPR or a treatment ceiling with no active assessment or treatment.
Using Martha's Rule as a substitute for immediate clinical escalation or giving a generic number without checking local implementation.
Failing to document observations, response times, treatment, ownership, monitoring frequency, escalation limits and family communication.
BEST-OF-FIVE KNOWLEDGE CHECK
Test the communication decision
SELF-ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Could I do this reliably?
REFLECTIVE LEARNING
Practise a 45-second escalation from Patrick's bedside: what has changed, what you have found, what you are doing, exactly who you need and by when. Which sentence will you use if the first response is dismissive?
This note stays on this device and is not sent to Clinora.
CONNECT KNOWLEDGE TO COMMUNICATION
Continue with related MRCP questions
Use the question bank to revisit the clinical science and decisions behind this conversation.
Sign in with your email-backed ChatGPT account to unlock the complete communication library, including interpreter-supported care, capacity, serious news, de-escalation, safeguarding, communication adjustments and safer treatment conversations.
06Working safely with an interpreter28 minutes · Evidence Passport included
07Capacity and supported decision-making32 minutes · Evidence Passport included
08Treatment escalation and DNACPR conversations32 minutes · Evidence Passport included
09Safe discharge, follow-up and medicines30 minutes · Evidence Passport included
10Candour after a delayed result30 minutes · Evidence Passport included
11Sharing serious news and responding to emotion38 minutes · Evidence Passport included
12De-escalating anger while keeping everyone safe35 minutes · Evidence Passport included
13Speaking up about a patient-safety concern34 minutes · Evidence Passport included
14Confidentiality when relatives ask for information38 minutes · Evidence Passport included
15Recognising when remote care is not enough35 minutes · Evidence Passport included
16Responding to a safeguarding disclosure40 minutes · Evidence Passport included
17Consent and chaperones for intimate examination32 minutes · Evidence Passport included
18Making reasonable communication adjustments33 minutes · Evidence Passport included
19Responding to a request for antibiotics33 minutes · Evidence Passport included
20Talking about weight without stigma34 minutes · Evidence Passport included
21When a patient declines care and wants to leave18 minutes · Evidence Passport included
22Explaining why the working diagnosis has changed17 minutes · Evidence Passport included
23Discussing driving and work after an unexplained blackout18 minutes · Evidence Passport included
24Responding compassionately after self-harm18 minutes · Evidence Passport included
25Explaining absolute risk without overselling benefit16 minutes · Evidence Passport included
26Managing disagreement with families about treatment42 minutes · Evidence Passport included
HELP IMPROVE THE PILOT
Invite five colleagues to review it.
Use the privacy-minimised feedback form to assess accuracy, clarity, usefulness and safety. No patient information, names or email addresses are required.
The communication library earns trust. The complete question bank funds Clinora.
Browse 5% of the question bank without signing in, or 10% with a free account. Fixed-term full-bank passes are available through secure Stripe Checkout.