MMI Interview Simulation · Sample
This page shows a complete sample report, so you can see what your own results will look like.
Six stations, and your instincts are sound in every one of them — you gather before you decide, you know when to escalate, and you do not moralise at people. The recurring gap is that you do the right thing without ever naming why. An MMI rubric has a line for the principle, and a station where the assessor has to infer it scores below one where you say it out loud. The second pattern is time: three stations ended with 40 seconds unused, and in two of those the thing you left out was the part that would have scored.
Core Skill Distribution
- Ethical reasoning6.5
- Communication7.5
- Empathy8
- Critical thinking7
- Professionalism7.5
Overall Speech Statistics
I worked as a care assistant at a residential home for two years while I was doing my degree, mostly evenings and weekends. The thing that changed my mind about medicine was a resident who stopped eating for about a week, and everyone assumed it was her dementia progressing. It turned out she had a badly fitting denture and couldn't tell us. Nobody had done anything wrong exactly, it's just that the person who could have worked it out wasn't in the room, and I kept thinking that I wanted to be the person who was in the room. I know that's a small example for a big decision, but it's the honest one.
Anchored in one incident with a concrete cause, not in a general desire to help.
Level 5 — motivation is evidenced by a specific experience and its reasoning is explicit.
No mention of doubt, cost, or anything about the career you expect to find difficult.
Level 3 — reflects on the experience but not on personal limitations.
A genuinely good answer, and the reason is the denture. Concrete, unglamorous, and it makes a specific argument about what a doctor does rather than a general one about helping people. "Nobody had done anything wrong exactly" is a mature observation about systems. The one thing missing is any counterweight — everything you have said about medicine so far is positive, and an assessor is entitled to wonder whether you have looked at the parts you would find hard.
I'd start by asking her what's brought her to that decision, because there's a lot of reasons someone might stop and they'd change what happens next — if it's side effects there might be something we can do, if it's that she's decided she's had enough then that's different. I'd tell her I'm not going to keep it from the team, but I would also say that I'm not going to go and tell the oncologist behind her back either, so what I'd suggest is that we tell them together, or she tells them and I'm there. I think I'd also want to check she's not making the decision because of something she's misunderstood about what the treatment is doing.
The reasoning is right but implicit. Confidentiality and its limits are handled well; autonomy is never named.
Level 3 — applies principles correctly but does not articulate them.
Asked why before responding, and offered a path that keeps her in control of the conversation.
Level 5 — explores the patient’s perspective before advising.
Well handled. You did not agree to the secret and you did not threaten her with it either, which is the trap in this station — most candidates fall into one side or the other. Offering to be in the room is a good concrete move. What is missing is the word autonomy, or any sentence that says this is her decision to make. You clearly believe it, because the whole answer is built on it, but the assessor is ticking a box that you never said out loud.
I'd say yes, but I'd be realistic about what's left. At four days out the main sections are basically done, so I'd offer him the bits that are still open — probably proofreading and putting the slides together, and presenting one part on the day so his name is on something. I wouldn't want to just freeze him out because that doesn't help anyone and it's four days, we need everyone we can get. I'd probably also say to the group that we should mention it to the tutor, not to get him in trouble, just so it's on record.
Went straight to task allocation. No attempt to find out why three weeks were missed.
Level 3 — pragmatic response with limited attention to the individual.
Right-sized the work to the time left, and kept him attached to the output rather than excluding him.
Level 4 — proposes a workable plan that balances fairness and delivery.
Raising it with the tutor "not to get him in trouble, just so it's on record" is the right framing.
Level 4 — recognises when a situation should be documented.
This answer doesn't clearly follow a structured thinking framework.
The plan is sensible and you got to the tutor question, which about half of candidates miss. But notice what you never did: you never asked him what happened. Three weeks of silence followed by a sudden offer to help usually has a reason, and it might be illness, bereavement, or something that changes what the group should do. Asking costs nothing and it is the difference between managing a task and dealing with a person.
I'd sit down first, and I'd tell him straight away rather than working up to it, because he's going to know something's wrong the moment I sit down. So — I'm really sorry, we've had to cancel tomorrow's operation, there aren't any beds on the ward. And then I'd stop and let him react, because he's going to be angry and he's entitled to be. I wouldn't defend the hospital or start explaining about bed pressures unless he asks. Once he's said what he needs to say I'd tell him what I actually know about a new date, and if I don't know I'd say I don't know but I'll find out and come back, and then I'd actually come back.
Sat down, led with the news, paused for the reaction. Textbook sequence, delivered naturally.
Level 5 — structure and pacing both appropriate to the situation.
Did not defend the hospital or explain bed pressures unprompted. Let the anger exist without managing it away.
Level 5 — tolerates strong emotion without deflecting.
Committed to a specific next action. No offer of anything concrete in the meantime (pain management, a contact number).
Level 4 — clear commitment, limited practical support offered.
The best station of the six. Telling him immediately rather than building up to it, stopping to let him be angry, and not defending the institution are three things candidates routinely get wrong, and you got all three. "I'll find out and come back, and then actually come back" is the line an assessor remembers. Nothing significant is missing — if you want a tenth point, name one practical thing you could offer him before you leave.
I think money probably isn't the main thing people are weighing up. If you move somewhere rural you're also moving your partner's job, and your kids' school, and you're a lot further from your own specialty training and from other doctors to ask when you're stuck. A bonus doesn't fix any of those. So the things I'd look at are more about making it survivable — proper locum cover so you can actually take leave, telemedicine links so you're not the only person making a hard call at two in the morning, and probably recruiting from rural areas in the first place, because people who grew up somewhere are much more likely to stay.
Identified that the barriers are structural and personal rather than financial, and built every proposal on that.
Level 5 — reframes the problem accurately before proposing solutions.
No figures, no country comparison, no reference to why rural recruitment works.
Level 3 — reasoning is sound but unsupported.
The proposals are presented without cost, trade-off, or who would object to them.
Level 3 — considers one side of the trade-off.
Strong reasoning. You reframed the problem from "not enough money" to "the costs are not financial", and the three interventions all follow from that reframe rather than being a list of good ideas. Recruiting from rural areas is the one with the best evidence behind it and you got there on your own. What is missing is any number, and any acknowledgement that your suggestions have costs of their own — locum cover is expensive, and someone has to pay for it.
I'd say something right then, before it goes anywhere near the patient. I'd try to do it in a way that isn't accusatory — something like, sorry, can I just check, I've read the chart as five milligrams, have I got that wrong? Because I might have, and that phrasing means she can correct either of us without it being a thing. If it is wrong then it gets redrawn, and I think the bit people forget is that it should still go through the incident reporting system afterwards, even though nothing reached the patient. Not to get her in trouble — near misses are the free information, they're how you find out about a process problem before it costs someone.
Immediate intervention before administration, without waiting for someone senior.
Level 5 — acts on safety without hesitation.
Framed as a question about their own reading of the chart, which lets a senior colleague correct course without losing face.
Level 5 — raises a concern while preserving the relationship.
Fastest and most filler-heavy station of the six. The reasoning deserved a steadier delivery.
Level 3 — content clear, fluency undermines authority.
Correct on all three counts: speak up now, phrase it so the other person can save face, and report the near miss anyway. The near-miss reasoning is the strongest thing here — most candidates stop once the dose is corrected. The delivery is the weak part: this was your fastest station and your filler rate was the highest of the six, which makes a confident judgement sound tentative.
Start now
Start using inif MMI Interview Simulation