Team Collaboration · Rating sample

Dr. Danielle Ross is completing a rotation on a busy inpatient family medicine teaching…

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

v2010Team CollaborationRatinghardCollaborator + Communicator, Professional

How desirable is each of the following responses by Dr. Ross in this situation? (1 = Very desirable; 2 = Somewhat desirable; 3 = Neither desirable nor undesirable; 4 = Somewhat undesirable; 5 = Very undesirable) Consider each option independently; several may share a rating.

Dr. Danielle Ross is completing a rotation on a busy inpatient family medicine teaching ward. Over the past three days, Dr. Alan Foster, the off-site attending physician, contacts Danielle expressing frustration about receiving multiple phone calls during his outpatient clinic for routine order clarifications, PRN medication approvals, and diet upgrades. Dr. Foster stresses that managing these routine ward issues is squarely within resident scope. Danielle approaches Nurse Gary, the day charge nurse, to discuss the issue. Gary candidly explains that past residents took hours to answer pages, so nursing staff found it far more efficient to call the attending directly. Danielle needs to re-establish proper paging workflow and rebuild trust with ward staff without alienating the nursing team.

Desirability scale: 1 very desirable, 2 somewhat desirable, 3 neither desirable nor undesirable, 4 somewhat undesirable, 5 very undesirable. Rate every option independently. Scores may repeat.

A. Inform Gary that bypassing residents directly breaches hospital policy and report him to the nurse manager.

B. Accept Gary's rationale and allow nurses to call Dr. Foster whenever the ward is busy.

C. Request Dr. Foster refuse to answer calls from the ward and redirect nurses back to her.

D. Apologize to Dr. Foster and assure him she will manage all future ward calls promptly.

E. Acknowledge past responsiveness frustrations and agree on expected response times for ward pages.

F. Propose scheduled mid-morning and mid-afternoon nursing check-ins on the ward to review non-urgent orders.

Rate each option independently

Samples are graded anonymously. Nothing is saved.

Show answer and rationale

A. Inform Gary that bypassing residents directly breaches hospital policy and report him to the nurse manager.

Key: 4

This is rated 4 (Somewhat undesirable). Immediately escalating to administrative authorities over an established ward habit creates resentment and destroys working relationships on the floor. While protocol adherence is important, informal peer problem-solving should precede punitive management reporting. It would be rated 5 if done without speaking to Gary first.

Premature formal escalation over workflow habits fractures frontline interprofessional partnerships.

B. Accept Gary's rationale and allow nurses to call Dr. Foster whenever the ward is busy.

Key: 5

This is rated 5 (Very undesirable). Abdicating core ward duties ignores explicit attending direction and sacrifices essential resident learning opportunities. It leaves the attending physician burdened with routine interruptions and confirms resident irrelevance. It demonstrates an extreme lack of accountability and professional initiative.

Abdicating clinical scope compromises medical education and overburdened attending staff.

C. Request Dr. Foster refuse to answer calls from the ward and redirect nurses back to her.

Key: 2

This is rated 2 (Somewhat desirable). Asking the attending to reinforce the communication chain of command aligns expectations and supports resident autonomy. However, relying on the attending to enforce boundaries is less effective than Danielle actively building rapport and demonstrating reliability herself. It would move to 1 if paired with proactive resident responsiveness.

Attending reinforcement of communication pathways supports resident scope but requires personal reliability.

D. Apologize to Dr. Foster and assure him she will manage all future ward calls promptly.

Key: 2

This is rated 2 (Somewhat desirable). Acknowledging the attending's frustration demonstrates professional accountability to a supervisor. However, a verbal assurance alone fails to address the root cause, which is nursing staff's lack of confidence in resident responsiveness. It would move up if accompanied by concrete action plans with nursing.

Supervisory reassurances must be matched with frontline systems changes to resolve workflow failures.

E. Acknowledge past responsiveness frustrations and agree on expected response times for ward pages.

Key: 1

This is rated 1 (Very desirable). Validating the nursing team's historical pain points demonstrates empathy and maturity while resetting operational expectations. Agreeing on realistic response benchmarks rebuilds trust and establishes functional accountability. It would move down if Danielle became defensive about previous residents' habits.

Validating team frustrations and agreeing on response benchmarks rebuilds collaborative trust.

F. Propose scheduled mid-morning and mid-afternoon nursing check-ins on the ward to review non-urgent orders.

Key: 1

This is rated 1 (Very desirable). Instituting structured, predictable face-to-face check-ins addresses the underlying problem of page volume and delay. It demonstrates leadership, adaptability, and proactive teamwork. It would move down if it added excessive administrative burden without resident availability.

Structured communication routines reduce interruption burdens and streamline inpatient workflow.

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.