Team Collaboration · Ranking sample

Dr. Ian Woods is a family medicine resident completing a rotation at a First Nations…

Read the scenario, answer it, then compare yourself to the answer key. Every option includes a rationale and a transferable principle.

b11Team CollaborationRankinghardCollaborator + Health Advocate

Rank in order the following actions for Dr. Woods to take in response to this situation (1 = Most desirable; 5 = Least desirable).

Dr. Ian Woods is a family medicine resident completing a rotation at a First Nations community health centre, with two weeks remaining. During an appointment for a nine-year-old child with poorly controlled asthma, Dr. Woods proposes scheduling weekly clinic appointments over the coming month for close monitoring. In front of the child's grandmother, Darlene, an experienced community wellness worker who coordinates local care, states, "We do not book visits like that. Families will not come three times a month for puffer checks." The grandmother nods in agreement with Darlene's statement. Dr. Woods wants to ensure adequate asthma control while respecting the community's context and care coordination norms.

Ranking scale: 1 is most desirable and 5 is least desirable. Use each rank exactly once. Pick one rank per option.

A. Accept Darlene's recommendation in the visit, then meet with her privately afterward to discuss sustainable asthma monitoring.

B. Explain the clinical goals of monitoring, then ask Darlene if community-based check-ins could replace frequent clinic appointments.

C. Acknowledge Darlene's insight and invite her and the grandmother to co-design a realistic follow-up plan together.

D. Proceed with booking the three visits, explaining to the grandmother that standard clinical guidelines require close monitoring.

E. Defer scheduling follow-up until discussing Darlene's objection and local scheduling norms with the supervising physician.

Use each rank exactly once

Samples are graded anonymously. Nothing is saved.

Show answer and rationale

A. Accept Darlene's recommendation in the visit, then meet with her privately afterward to discuss sustainable asthma monitoring.

Key: 3

This response is neither fully desirable nor undesirable; it defers conflict in front of the patient and shows respect for Darlene's position, but leaves the child's immediate monitoring plan unresolved during the encounter. Postponing the discussion risks sending mixed messages to the family about the importance of asthma oversight. It would rank higher if a collaborative monitoring compromise were established before the patient departed.

Address clinical safety needs collaboratively during the visit rather than postponing them.

B. Explain the clinical goals of monitoring, then ask Darlene if community-based check-ins could replace frequent clinic appointments.

Key: 2

This response is desirable because it articulates safety goals while collaboratively leveraging Darlene's knowledge of alternative local resources. However, it focuses on justifying the resident's clinical perspective before directly consulting the grandmother about feasibility. It would rank higher if it invited family and worker input before reiterating clinical needs.

Adapt clinical monitoring goals collaboratively using community-based interprofessional resources.

C. Acknowledge Darlene's insight and invite her and the grandmother to co-design a realistic follow-up plan together.

Key: 1

This is the most desirable response because it actively validates the wellness worker's community expertise while empowering the family in shared decision-making. It strengthens interprofessional collaboration and builds trust without compromising patient care. It would only rank lower if an acute medical emergency required immediate, unilateral clinical intervention.

Respect community team expertise by co-designing care with patients and allied staff.

D. Proceed with booking the three visits, explaining to the grandmother that standard clinical guidelines require close monitoring.

Key: 5

This is the least desirable response as it overtly dismisses the community worker's local knowledge and ignores the caregiver's agreement with her. Enforcing an unfeasible plan damages therapeutic rapport and significantly increases the risk of complete non-attendance, jeopardizing child safety. It would only be acceptable in an acute, severe medical crisis requiring mandatory in-person care.

Never dismiss interprofessional cultural expertise to enforce rigid, unfeasible care plans.

E. Defer scheduling follow-up until discussing Darlene's objection and local scheduling norms with the supervising physician.

Key: 4

This response is undesirable because it halts decision-making and avoids constructive communication with the colleague and family present in the room. While seeking preceptor guidance on local practices is appropriate, failing to agree on any interim plan leaves the child vulnerable and undermines the resident's professional accountability. It would rank higher if an interim plan were initiated while awaiting supervision.

Do not stall patient care decisions when collaborative solutions exist within scope.

Exam context: FMProC assesses team collaboration alongside three other attributes. This is an unofficial worked example, not a live exam item.

Educational scenario only. Not clinical or professional advice.