Explaining a plan to a junior colleague is not patient counselling with more technical vocabulary. The colleague needs to understand the reasoning, their own responsibility, the limits of the plan and when to seek further help. A polished description is incomplete when nobody can tell who should do the next task.
The RCOG's MRCOG Part 3 format guidance, checked on 13 September 2026, includes simulated patient or colleague tasks and structured discussions. Preparation should therefore include professional interactions as well as patient-facing explanations. Follow the particular instructions rather than assuming every task is a conventional consultation.
Start with the colleague's question
A junior colleague may be asking for a decision, help interpreting information, permission to proceed, or clarification about their responsibility. Answering the wrong version creates an apparently comprehensive discussion that leaves the actual problem unresolved.
At the start of a practice task, identify the decision and what the colleague already knows. There is little educational value in explaining the entire topic before discovering that the obstacle is a missing result or uncertainty about escalation. Equally, a bare instruction may be inadequate when the colleague does not understand why the decision matters.
Think of the response as a handover of reasoning and responsibility. The colleague should be able to explain both what to do and what would make the instruction no longer appropriate.
An original colleague-facing case
In this fictional scenario, a junior doctor is preparing a follow-up plan after a gynaecological assessment. An investigation is still pending, and the draft plan does not identify who will review it. The junior asks whether the patient can simply be told that the team will contact them.
The exercise does not supply enough clinical information to decide the patient's care. Its focus is the quality of the professional discussion. A weak response is: "Yes, arrange follow-up and safety-net appropriately." It uses familiar terms without resolving the missing responsibility.
A stronger educational response identifies the gap: "Before we give that explanation, we need to establish which team is reviewing the result, how the patient will receive the outcome and what happens if the expected contact does not occur. Let us check the local process rather than imply that someone has accepted the task."
The learner then asks the junior to summarise the agreed responsibilities. The purpose is not to test them theatrically, but to discover whether both clinicians mean the same thing by "follow-up".
Add a constraint and see whether the plan survives
In the second version, the junior explains that the usual reviewing clinician will be away. Nothing else changes. The learner should not simply repeat the original plan or invent a replacement clinician who has not agreed to the task.
Instead, identify the consequence of the new information, establish who can accept responsibility through the appropriate local route and update the patient explanation accordingly. Keep administrative assumptions visible: access to a system, availability of a clinic and acceptance of a handover are facts to establish, not conveniences to add to the story.
This makes the exercise different from rehearsing a perfect answer. The learner must show which part of the plan depended on an assumption and how that dependency will be resolved.
A teaching-and-delegation worksheet
Use the following original worksheet in peer practice. It is not an RCOG scoring instrument or a clinical management pathway.
| Question | What the learner should make clear |
|---|---|
| What decision is being discussed? | The actual unresolved issue, not the entire textbook topic |
| Why is this approach proposed? | The relevant reasoning and information supporting it |
| What is missing? | Results, observations, permissions or responsibilities still to establish |
| Who is doing what? | A named role or agreed process, without inventing acceptance |
| What changes the plan? | A specific uncertainty or development that requires review |
| Has the explanation been understood? | The colleague's account of the next step and escalation route |
After the discussion, ask the observer to underline instructions that lack an owner. Then look for explanations that are technically accurate but do not help the junior act. These are different errors and need different corrections.
A useful final question is, "What would this colleague do after leaving the room?" If the answer is unclear, the interaction has not yet produced an operationally meaningful plan.
Practise teaching without making the encounter a lecture
Choose one point that explains the current decision. Ask the colleague to reason through it, then correct or extend their understanding. A long lecture may conceal the fact that their immediate question has not been answered.
In partner practice, give the junior role-player a defined level of knowledge and one uncertainty. They should not become an expert whenever the learner uses a familiar phrase. Conversely, they should not invent endless objections to make the exercise impossible.
Review whether the learner invited questions, checked understanding and acknowledged limits. These are observable behaviours. Claims that the colleague "felt supported" need the role-player's actual feedback rather than the candidate's assumption.
Choose resources around the interaction
This article is published by iatroX and includes its own learning tools alongside RCOG preparation resources. The official resources establish assessment relevance; supervised discussions and peer practice can reveal how the learner communicates with a colleague. They are not interchangeable functions.
Per the September 2026 iatroX simulation release, MRCOG Part 3 is a supported track, with practice and exam modes, transcript-linked feedback and Tutor-led follow-up. Use a suitable case to investigate how you explain reasoning and respond to missing information. Do not infer that every possible colleague-facing task is available or that generated feedback represents College assessment.
The UK subscription, as published in September 2026, costs £99 paid upfront annually, equivalent to £8.25 a month billed annually, or £29 monthly. It includes paid banks, Tutor, study planning, simulations and CPD tools together. One complete simulation is free, allowing the learner to examine the interaction and feedback before committing to further access.
For uncertainty about assessment expectations, start with RCOG. For a persistent delegation or communication difficulty, prioritise human observation. For repeated rehearsal between teaching sessions, a relevant simulation can be useful. The aim is not more speaking practice in the abstract, but a colleague who can accurately explain the agreed next step.
Frequently asked questions
Does MRCOG Part 3 include interactions other than patient counselling?
Yes. RCOG's published format includes colleague tasks and structured discussions as well as patient-facing tasks, so preparation should reflect the actual instruction.
Should I give a junior colleague the entire background topic?
Only the relevant explanation is needed for the task. Establish what they understand and what decision they need help with before expanding into teaching.
Can a fictional practice plan be entered as workplace evidence?
It can be recorded honestly as simulation or personal learning where appropriate, but not as a clinical interaction or assessment that did not occur.