O&G Vivas · Gynaecological health — sexual, cultural and safeguarding
Female genital mutilation — structured oral station (12 minutes)
FRANZCOG oral-format station on female genital mutilation: candidate reproduces the WHO classification, defends the deinfibulation and intrapartum plan for Type III, addresses the ANZ legal absolutes and the mandatory-reporting duty, and demonstrates cultural competence and trauma-informed care. Scored against the eight published RANZCOG oral domains.
On this page
Study tools
Target exams
Station format
4 minutes reading, 12 minutes examination, 20 marks, global scoring. The eight published RANZCOG oral domains apply to every station: history and examination; investigations and interpreting results; treatment and management; clinical knowledge; complex, urgent or unusual clinical presentations; rapport with patient, support person or colleague; respect; communication skills. You are marked on how you behave, not only what you know. [5]
Reveal the examiner script and model responsesShowHide
Opening prompt — "Classify her finding and tell me what it means for the birth."
Model response — verbatim WHO classification then the intrapartum consequence: [5][7]
- "She has Type III FGM — WHO Type III, often called infibulation, is the narrowing of the vaginal opening with the creation of a covering seal, formed by cutting and repositioning the labia minora or majora, with or without removal of the clitoral glans and prepuce."
- "Type III is the form that narrows the introitus and drives the intrapartum decision: it carries the highest obstetric risk — caesarean, postpartum haemorrhage, prolonged labour, instrumental delivery and perinatal death — from the WHO Lancet 2006 study."[2]
- "My plan is to deinfibulate, never reinfibulate, and to plan a vaginal birth after deinfibulation unless there is a standard obstetric indication for caesarean."[5][8]
Probe 1 — "Walk me through your antenatal plan."
- "At booking I document the WHO Type III in the handheld record and the hospital system. I arrange a professional, non-family interpreter and a female clinician with a chaperone. I screen for urogenital and psychosexual complications — urinalysis, swabs, a mental-health and sexual-function assessment — and offer referral to a specialist FGM service."[8][10]
- "I counsel her on deinfibulation: a midline vertical incision of the scar, with suture of the raw labial edges, to open the introitus; I explain that I will not reinfibulate. I offer elective antenatal deinfibulation around 20 weeks so she heals before birth, or deinfibulation at the onset of labour if she prefers."[5]
Probe 2 — "She asks you to 're-stitch' her after the birth. What do you say?"
- "I decline, firmly and non-judgmentally. WHO recommends against reinfibulation because it increases health risks throughout the life-course, and reinfibulation is itself a form of FGM. I explain this, offer psychosocial and sexual-health support, and document the conversation."[5][8]
Probe 3 — "Her mother-in-law offers to interpret. What is your response?"
- "I thank her but decline. I never use a family or community member as interpreter for an FGM consultation — it breaches confidentiality and may place the woman at risk. I use a trained professional interpreter, and I ask the woman whether she prefers one who is not from her own community."[10][11]
Probe 4 — "She asks you to perform 'a small cutting' on her six-year-old daughter. What do you do?"
- "I refuse. FGM on a child is a criminal offence in every Australian state and territory and in New Zealand, and performing or facilitating it — including 'vacation cutting' abroad — is prohibited. This is a mandatory-reporting scenario: I make an immediate report to child protection, I document the conversation, and I offer the family culturally safe information and support."[8][9]
Probe 5 — "She is frightened and embarrassed. How do you communicate?"
This is a scored communication domain — demonstrate it out loud: [10]
- Move to her eye level, use her name, acknowledge the fear: "Thank you for trusting me with this. Many women from your community have been through it, and you have done nothing wrong. My job is to plan a safe birth for you and your baby, and to support you."
- Explain the plan in plain language, with the interpreter; offer a female clinician and a named contact for between visits; offer referral to community-led support.[8][11]
Probe 6 — "How would your plan differ for a woman with Type II?"
- "Type II is excision of the clitoral glans and labia minora, with or without the labia majora. Deinfibulation is not required unless she is symptomatic; the introitus is patent. I plan a vaginal birth with vigilant perineal care and PPH preparedness. The dose-response — the WHO Lancet study — shows lower obstetric risk than Type III but still elevated above uncut women."[2][5]
References7ShowHide
- [2]Banks E, Meirik O, Farley T, Akande O, Bathija H, Ali M Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome: WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries. Lancet, 2006.PMID 16753486
- [5]Abdulcadir J, Marras S, Catania L, Abdulcadir O, Petignat P Defibulation: A Visual Reference and Learning Tool. J Sex Med, 2018.PMID 29463476
- [7]Wood R, Richens Y, Lavender T The experiences and psychological outcomes for pregnant women who have had FGM: A systematic review. Sex Reprod Healthc, 2021.PMID 34051456
- [8]Varol N, Hall JJ, Black K, Turkmani S, Dawson A Evidence-based policy responses to strengthen health, community and legislative systems that care for women in Australia with female genital mutilation/cutting. Reprod Health, 2017.PMID 28521830
- [9]Njue C, Karumbi J, Esho T, Varol N, Dawson A Preventing female genital mutilation in high income countries: a systematic review of the evidence. Reprod Health, 2019.PMID 31331357
- [10]Abdulcadir J, Say L, Pallitto C What do we know about assessing healthcare students and professionals' knowledge, attitude and practice regarding female genital mutilation? A systematic review. Reprod Health, 2017.PMID 28532515
- [11]Balfour J, Abdulcadir J, Say L, Hindin MJ Interventions for healthcare providers to improve treatment and prevention of female genital mutilation: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res, 2016.PMID 27542732