A diagnosis game becomes a teaching session when learners explain what changed their minds. Use one case, pause before each new clue, and ask for the next discriminating question rather than accepting the first correct diagnosis as the end of the exercise. The management discussion matters even when somebody solves the case immediately.
The format below is an original 20-minute facilitation plan, not a validated teaching intervention or a claim about examination outcomes. It uses the publicly described iatroX Rounds mechanics as checked on 6 September 2026.
Prepare one case and one learning objective
iatroX Rounds presents a daily diagnosis case with staged clues and up to six guesses. Its September 2026 page describes further clues following incorrect guesses, free play and account-based saving of progress. The archive provides earlier cases to explore.
Choose a case before the session and read it yourself. Decide whether the objective is identifying a discriminating feature, revising a differential, explaining uncertainty or planning the next assessment. Do not try to teach the entire disease within the same short session.
Have a way for everyone to record an initial answer privately. Paper is sufficient. This workshop does not require a group dashboard, custom-case upload or a facilitator-control feature, none of which is established by the public Rounds description. Pause the discussion around the clues the product actually presents.
Minutes zero to three: commit before discussion
Show the opening information and ask each learner to write a leading diagnosis, one alternative and the next piece of information they would seek. Ask for a reason, not a confidence score with false precision.
Private commitment prevents the most experienced speaker from supplying the group's answer before others have thought. Tell participants that changing a diagnosis in response to evidence is part of the task, not an admission of failure.
Use a neutral opening question: "What would make your leading explanation less likely?" It invites a falsifiable interpretation. "Who knows the answer?" mainly rewards recognition and speed.
Minutes three to seven: make each clue do some work
Before advancing, collect the proposed next question or investigation. After the next clue, ask which possibility moved up, which moved down and why. Require the group to refer to the new information rather than repeat the entire differential.
The facilitator should distinguish a wrong diagnosis reached through reasonable early reasoning from a correct diagnosis reached by guessing. The educational feedback will differ. A learner who named the eventual diagnosis cannot yet demonstrate sound reasoning merely by pointing to the final reveal.
If the case is solved early, stop chasing additional guesses. Use the remaining time to examine the evidence and the next clinical task. The workshop is not a competition to consume all available clues.
Minutes seven to eleven: a worked teaching variation
Here is a separate fictional example illustrating the discussion method, not a claim that this exact case exists in the live Rounds library.
An adult describes recurrent dizziness. The next information establishes brief episodes of spinning associated with turning in bed. Ask the group what this adds and what remains uncertain. The intended discussion concerns timing, triggers and assessment, rather than selecting a diagnosis from the word "dizzy" alone.
NICE NG127, checked on 6 September 2026, recommends an appropriately performed Hallpike manoeuvre when assessing transient rotational vertigo on head movement, with a trained professional or referral through local pathways. A history compatible with positional vertigo does not mean the physical assessment has already been performed.
Now introduce a changed scenario with persistent symptoms and new neurological features. Ask which assumptions from the earlier version no longer hold. Do not teach the group to force the new presentation into the first diagnosis. The clinical response must follow the actual assessment and applicable urgent guidance, not the game's earlier pattern.
Minutes eleven to sixteen: move beyond the answer
Ask each learner to describe the next assessment or management step and the information needed to justify it. In the fictional dizziness exercise, the discussion should distinguish recognising a possible syndrome from demonstrating an examination skill or deciding the appropriate clinical route.
Compare two proposed plans. One might simply name a diagnosis and offer reassurance. Another might state the working explanation, acknowledge what has not yet been established and describe how that uncertainty will be resolved. Ask the group which plan is more actionable and what still needs improvement.
Keep procedural practice separate. A staged written case cannot show whether a learner can safely perform an examination manoeuvre. Arrange appropriate supervised teaching for that skill rather than claiming the discussion has covered it.
Minutes sixteen to twenty: retrieve, reflect and close
Remove the case from view. Ask one new question that tests the principle rather than recall of the final label. For example: "Which change in timing or associated features would make you reconsider the earlier explanation?"
Have each participant write one sentence about what they would do differently next time. The sentence should name a behaviour: clarifying a trigger, testing an alternative or explaining an uncertainty. "Revise vertigo" is a topic, not a behavioural plan.
End by identifying any question the group could not answer. Give it an owner and a source to check before the next meeting. Do not fill the gap with a confident guess just because the session is ending.
Facilitator notes for a mixed group
A medical student may need help recognising the relevant history, while an experienced clinician may benefit more from discussing competing priorities or local access. Keep the same case but vary the follow-up question rather than letting the discussion become too elementary for one group or too advanced for another.
Protect psychological safety without removing challenge. Ask learners to explain their reasoning, but do not use a wrong guess as evidence about their overall competence. If the case exposes a sensitive personal clinical experience, move the discussion back to the fictional material.
As of September 2026, an attempted iatroX question can lead into Socratic Tutor, and CPD tools can support a learner-reviewed record. Those are possible follow-on activities, not proof that the Rounds session automatically exports a workshop attendance record or awards accredited credit.
Frequently asked questions
Is this a built-in Rounds workshop mode?
No, it is an original facilitation method using the publicly described case and clue format. It does not assume custom-case creation or group-management features.
What happens if someone already knows the answer?
Ask them to explain which evidence supports it and what would make them reconsider. Use the remaining time for assessment, management and communication rather than ending the session early.
Does completing the workshop demonstrate clinical competence?
No, it provides an opportunity to discuss and practise reasoning. Physical examination, procedural performance and workplace competence require appropriate assessment beyond a diagnosis game.