Student
Dr. Sarah Ahmed
Trainee Level
Clinical Student
Date
March 5, 2026
Duration
22 minutes
Overall Score
85
/100
Grade: A
Excellent performance with strong ethical reasoning
Score Breakdown
Weighted components of your evaluation
Patient Exploration (20%)18/20
90% achievement
Family Engagement (5%)4/5
80% achievement
Ethical Framing (15%)13/15
87% achievement
Framework Application (40%)34/40
85% achievement
Self-Reflection & Coping (20%)16/20
80% achievement
How Scores Are Calculated
Detailed breakdown of each evaluation component
20%
Patient Exploration
Measures how thoroughly the student explored the patient's hidden layers and uncovered critical medical/ethical information.
Scoring Criteria:
- 0-5 pts: Minimal engagement, surface-level questions only
- 6-10 pts: Average exploration, uncovered 2-3 hidden layers
- 11-15 pts: Good exploration, uncovered 4 layers with depth
- 16-20 pts: Comprehensive exploration, uncovered all 5 layers with insightful follow-ups
Your Score (18/20): You asked probing questions about the patient's wishes, fears, religious beliefs, family dynamics, and previous medical experiences. You uncovered 5/5 hidden layers but could have spent more time exploring the patient's autonomy vs. family pressure.
5%
Family Engagement
Measures if the student appropriately triggered and managed the family member encounter (Phase 2).
Scoring Criteria:
- 0 pts: Never triggered family encounter
- 1 pt: Triggered but minimally engaged
- 2-3 pts: Good engagement, explored family perspectives
- 4-5 pts: Excellent engagement, balanced patient/family interests
Your Score (4/5): You naturally progressed to the family encounter, asked about the daughter's concerns, and explored the cultural expectations. Minor deduction for not fully addressing the financial burden's impact on the family's decision.
15%
Ethical Framing
Measures if the student correctly identified the core ethical dilemma and understood the competing values at stake.
Scoring Criteria:
- 0-4 pts: Misidentified dilemma or vague understanding
- 5-9 pts: Identified main issue but missed nuances
- 10-12 pts: Clear articulation of dilemma with multiple perspectives
- 13-15 pts: Excellent framing, identified autonomy vs. beneficence vs. family obligations
Your Score (13/15): You clearly articulated the tension between patient autonomy and family expectations in a palliative care context. You identified autonomy, beneficence, and justice principles in play. Could have more explicitly addressed the justice dimension regarding healthcare resource allocation.
40%
Framework Application
Measures how well the student applied ethical frameworks (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice) in their written analysis and clinical recommendations.
Scoring Criteria:
- 0-10 pts: Minimal framework application, advice is clinically vague
- 11-20 pts: Basic application to 1-2 principles with generic advice
- 21-30 pts: Solid application to 3 principles, contextually appropriate
- 31-40 pts: Sophisticated application of all 4 principles with specific, actionable recommendations
Your Score (34/40): Your written analysis demonstrated strong understanding of autonomy-centered palliative care. You recommended a family meeting respecting the patient's wishes—excellent! You also addressed beneficence (pain management) and non-maleficence (avoiding aggressive ICU care). Minor deduction: limited discussion of justice-based resource allocation and community/social support systems.
20%
Self-Reflection & Coping
Measures the student's ability to recognize their own emotional response to the case and articulate coping strategies.
Scoring Criteria:
- 0-5 pts: No self-reflection or defensive responses
- 6-10 pts: Basic acknowledgment of emotional difficulty
- 11-15 pts: Good self-awareness with some coping strategies mentioned
- 16-20 pts: Excellent self-awareness, identifies moral distress, articulates growth areas
Your Score (16/20): You demonstrated strong emotional awareness about the difficulty of discussing end-of-life care. You reflected on your own discomfort with uncertain outcomes and identified the need to improve your communication skills. You mentioned wanting to develop better family counseling techniques. Strong work—consider deeper exploration of moral distress management and resilience building.
Summary & Recommendations
✅ Strengths
- Comprehensive patient exploration with thoughtful follow-up questions
- Natural progression through simulation phases with appropriate emotional intelligence
- Strong ethical framework understanding applied to palliative care context
📈 Areas for Growth
- Deepen analysis of justice principles and health equity in resource allocation
- Develop more structured approach to family conflict resolution
- Strengthen personal resilience strategies for managing moral distress