Psych Vivas · Professional practice
Clinical communication and the psychiatric interview — structured clinical viva
Fellowship viva on interview structure, breaking bad news, engagement in psychosis, shared decision making, and documentation.
On this page
Study tools
Target exams
Interpretation
Reveal interpretationShowHide
Reject the framing first. "Get him on board with a depot" is a compliance frame, and it is how alliances die. The task is a conversation the patient can participate in, not a signature on a plan.[5][6]
Structure. Calgary-Cambridge arc: protected setting; introduction and consent; his perception first — "what do you make of what has happened?" — before any label; signposted transitions; at least one verbal summary; close with teach-back. Micro-skills: funnelled questioning, silence tolerance, no stacked questions.[1][2]
Engage the psychosis, not just the checklist. McCabe's conversation analysis showed patients attempt to discuss their psychotic experiences and clinicians often answer with more questions, after which patients withdraw. "That sounds frightening — tell me what it was like" keeps the channel open; "those beliefs aren't real" closes it. Neither endorse nor ridicule; acknowledge the distress as real.[4]
Breaking the news. SPIKES: Setting, Perception, Invitation, Knowledge (warning shot, plain language, treatable frame, uncertainty about course after a first episode), Empathy for the emotional response, Strategy and summary. The mother's demand for "full truth" is managed through the patient's consent — ask him what he wants shared, with her present or not.[3]
Negotiating treatment. Elwyn's sequence: choice talk (options exist and his view matters), team talk, option talk (oral versus depot with honest harms, psychological and family work, no-treatment consequences), decision talk (what matters most to him — sedation, injections, frequency). Deegan and Drake: medication as a tool he hires for his own recovery goals, with a planned review date, not a life sentence.[5][6]
Document. Who consented to what sharing; his perception in his own words; information given; options with harms; the plan as agreed; and the check-back. Write the note he could read.[7]
References7ShowHide
- [1]Smith RC, Hoppe RB The patient's story: integrating the patient- and physician-centered approaches to interviewing Ann Intern Med, 1991.PMID 1872495
- [2]Kurtz S, Silverman J, Benson J, et al. Marrying content and process in clinical method teaching: enhancing the Calgary-Cambridge guides Acad Med, 2003.PMID 12915371
- [3]Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, et al. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer Oncologist, 2000.PMID 10964998
- [4]McCabe R, Heath C, Burns T, et al. Engagement of patients with psychosis in the consultation: conversation analytic study BMJ, 2002.PMID 12433765
- [5]Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice J Gen Intern Med, 2012.PMID 22618581
- [6]Deegan PE, Drake RE Shared decision making and medication management in the recovery process Psychiatr Serv, 2006.PMID 17085613
- [7]Delbanco T, Walker J, Bell SK, et al. Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead Ann Intern Med, 2012.PMID 23027317