DoctorGPT
Feedback from Patients
Patient 1
The doctor demonstrated good engagement, empathy, and understanding when addressing Ashlee’s concerns, and appropriately offered counselling services. A minor suggestion is to ensure a full introduction and confirm the simulated patient’s (SP’s) full name and date of birth at the start, as per standard OSCE procedure.
Patient 2
The doctor demonstrated empathy, but it felt formulaic and overused, with empathic statements placed before nearly every comment, which reduced their effectiveness. Additionally, the first sentence was awkward and poorly phrased.
Patient 3
The doctor should pause more to allow the patient to elaborate, rather than immediately asking follow-up questions. Additionally, some double-ended questions—like combining “what happened” and “how are you feeling?”—could be simplified for clarity.
Feedback from Clinicians
Clinician 1
The consultation began with a poor introduction that could alienate a vulnerable patient, though the second interaction showed more genuine concern. Good early mirroring helped the patient feel heard. However, a poorly timed and impersonal question about stress disrupted the flow, especially since the trigger was already known. Key areas, such as risk assessment (e.g. suicide risk), were not addressed, preventing a strong pass despite some appropriate and empathetic moments.
Clinician 2
Demonstrated strong communication skills and empathy with the patient. Make sure to cover all components of the HEADSS assessment and clearly explain the full plan, including the likelihood of staying on the ward overnight to see CAMHS in the morning.
Clinician 3
The consultation showed poor communication skills, beginning with an inappropriate identification question—asking for the patient’s name and date of birth would be more appropriate than referencing the self-harm incident directly. It’s essential to assess suicidal ideation and intent related to the specific event. The doctor should explore the patient’s mood in greater depth and thoroughly assess other relevant areas such as drug and alcohol use and interpersonal relationships. Additionally, it’s important to clearly explain that the patient will need to stay until reviewed by Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and to check the patient’s understanding and provide a clear summary at the end.
PatientGPT
Feedback from Patients
Patient 1
I felt the SP’s comments were relevant, but there was no indication of the emotional state one might expect in this scenario—such as being upset, teary, nervous, or hesitant when responding to the doctor’s questions. Overall, though, the responses were generally appropriate.
Patient 2
The SP revealed too much information too easily; showing more visible distress and some reluctance to speak would have made the portrayal more realistic.
Patient 3
You would expect a topic like this to be more challenging to navigate, with the patient likely finding it harder to speak openly and provide clear, honest answers.
Feedback from Clinicians
Clinician 1
The initial response felt somewhat forced and artificial, with the patient explaining why she came in to the question: “Are you the patient?”. Despite this, the conversation had a good back-and-forth flow. Most responses were appropriate and contributed to a smooth consultation. However, in reality, many teenagers would likely be less open, as a significant amount of information was shared without much probing or effort to build rapport.
Clinician 2
They may have shown a bit more hesitation to speak, but overall, the portrayal felt fairly realistic.
Clinician 3
Adolescents who self-harm typically respond with more reluctance, and may need greater persuasion and explanation about the importance of staying in for both physical and mental health care.