Risk-benefit analysis of interventions US Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Practice US Medical PG questions for Risk-benefit analysis of interventions. These multiple choice questions (MCQs) cover important concepts and help you prepare for your exams.
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions US Medical PG Question 1: A 5-year-old child is brought to the emergency department after being hit by a motor vehicle on the way to school. According to paramedics, the child's right leg was severely crushed in the accident. After evaluation, the physician recommends immediate limb-saving surgery to preserve the leg and prevent complications. However, the parents refuse to consent to the surgery. They explain that they heard about a similar case where a child died after limb-saving surgery, and they believe the procedure might lead to amputation or death. Despite the physician's explanation that the surgery is intended to save the limb, the parents remain adamant in their refusal. What is the next best step?
- A. Contact the next of kin
- B. Ask for a court order
- C. Take into account the child’s wishes
- D. Take the parents' wishes into account
- E. Inform the hospital Ethics Committee, state authority, and child protective services, and obtain a court order to proceed with treatment (Correct Answer)
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions Explanation: ***Inform the hospital Ethics Committee, state authority, and child protective services, and obtain a court order to proceed with treatment***
- When parents refuse **life-saving or limb-saving treatment** for a child, and the medical team believes the treatment is in the child's best interest, the case becomes a legal and ethical concern requiring immediate institutional and legal intervention.
- The appropriate response involves **multiple parallel actions**: contacting the hospital **Ethics Committee** for guidance, notifying **Child Protective Services (CPS)** for suspected medical neglect, and seeking a **court order** to authorize treatment.
- This comprehensive approach protects the child's welfare while respecting legal procedures. **Medical neglect** constitutes a form of child abuse, and the state has parens patriae authority to protect minor citizens when parents' decisions threaten serious harm.
- In true life-threatening emergencies where delay would cause death or serious harm, physicians may proceed under emergency doctrine, but for urgent situations allowing time for legal process, a court order should be obtained.
*Contact the next of kin*
- While contacting other family members might provide support or alternative perspectives, it does not address the immediate legal and ethical obligations when parents refuse medically necessary care.
- The parents are the legal guardians, and their refusal necessitates formal institutional and legal intervention rather than informal family consultation.
*Ask for a court order*
- While obtaining a **court order** is essential when parental consent is refused for necessary treatment, this option alone is incomplete.
- The most appropriate immediate response involves the **comprehensive institutional approach**: simultaneously engaging the Ethics Committee for guidance, notifying CPS for child protection, and initiating the legal process for court authorization.
- This multi-pronged approach ensures all stakeholders are involved and the child's interests are protected through proper channels.
*Take into account the child's wishes*
- A 5-year-old child lacks the **developmental capacity and legal standing** for informed consent regarding complex medical procedures.
- While assent from older minors (typically 7+ years) may be considered for less critical decisions, a 5-year-old's wishes regarding limb-saving surgery are not determinative.
- The focus must remain on the child's **best medical interest** as determined by medical professionals and legal frameworks, not the child's limited understanding at this developmental stage.
*Take the parents' wishes into account*
- While parental autonomy in medical decision-making is generally respected, this principle has limits when parental decisions would result in **significant harm, neglect, or death** to the child.
- When parents refuse **medically indicated, life-saving, or limb-saving treatment**, their decision can and should be legally challenged through appropriate institutional and judicial channels to protect the child's welfare.
- The state's interest in protecting children overrides parental preferences when those preferences threaten serious harm.
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions US Medical PG Question 2: A 13-year-old boy is brought to the emergency department after being involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he was a restrained passenger. He is confused and appears anxious. His pulse is 131/min, respirations are 29/min, and blood pressure is 95/49 mm Hg. Physical examination shows ecchymosis over the upper abdomen, with tenderness to palpation over the left upper quadrant. There is no guarding or rigidity. Abdominal ultrasound shows free intraperitoneal fluid and a splenic rupture. Intravenous fluids and vasopressors are administered. A blood transfusion and exploratory laparotomy are scheduled. The patient's mother arrives and insists that her son should not receive a blood transfusion because he is a Jehovah's Witness. The physician proceeds with the blood transfusion regardless of the mother's wishes. The physician's behavior is an example of which of the following principles of medical ethics?
- A. Autonomy
- B. Nonmaleficence
- C. Informed consent
- D. Justice
- E. Beneficence (Correct Answer)
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions Explanation: ***Beneficence***
- The physician prioritized the patient's immediate survival and well-being, which is the core principle of **beneficence** (acting in the best interest of the patient).
- In cases of life-threatening emergencies, especially with minors, the duty to preserve life often outweighs other considerations like parental wishes, particularly when the patient lacks the capacity for **informed refusal**.
*Autonomy*
- The physician’s action directly overrides the mother's wishes, which would be an infringement of surrogate autonomy for a minor.
- While patient autonomy is a fundamental principle, it was superseded by the immediate need to save the patient's life.
*Nonmaleficence*
- **Nonmaleficence** means "do no harm." While transfusions have risks, refusing one in this critical situation would cause more harm (death) than performing it.
- The physician acted to prevent immediate harm (death from hemorrhage), even if it meant overriding a family's wishes regarding the specific treatment method.
*Informed consent*
- **Informed consent** requires obtaining permission from a capacitated patient (or legal guardian for a minor) after explaining the risks and benefits of a treatment.
- In this emergency scenario, the patient is a minor and incapacitated, and the urgent need for a life-saving intervention (blood transfusion for a splenic rupture) did not allow for full informed consent or negotiation with the mother, who was refusing a life-saving measure.
*Justice*
- **Justice** refers to the fair and equitable distribution of healthcare resources and equal treatment, which is not the primary ethical concern in this personal patient-physician interaction.
- The scenario focuses on the individual patient's treatment decision, not broader societal resource allocation or fairness in access to care.
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions US Medical PG Question 3: A 57-year-old man presents to his oncologist to discuss management of small cell lung cancer. The patient is a lifelong smoker and was diagnosed with cancer 1 week ago. The patient states that the cancer was his fault for smoking and that there is "no hope now." He seems disinterested in discussing the treatment options and making a plan for treatment and followup. The patient says "he does not want any treatment" for his condition. Which of the following is the most appropriate response from the physician?
- A. "You seem upset at the news of this diagnosis. I want you to go home and discuss this with your loved ones and come back when you feel ready to make a plan together for your care."
- B. "It must be tough having received this diagnosis; however, new cancer therapies show increased efficacy and excellent outcomes."
- C. "It must be very challenging having received this diagnosis. I want to work with you to create a plan." (Correct Answer)
- D. "We are going to need to treat your lung cancer. I am here to help you throughout the process."
- E. "I respect your decision and we will not administer any treatment. Let me know if I can help in any way."
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions Explanation: ***"It must be very challenging having received this diagnosis. I want to work with you to create a plan."***
- This response **acknowledges the patient's emotional distress** and feelings of guilt and hopelessness, which is crucial for building rapport and trust.
- It also gently **re-engages the patient** by offering a collaborative approach to treatment, demonstrating the physician's commitment to supporting him through the process.
*"You seem upset at the news of this diagnosis. I want you to go home and discuss this with your loved ones and come back when you feel ready to make a plan together for your care."*
- While acknowledging distress, sending the patient home without further engagement **delays urgent care** for small cell lung cancer, which is aggressive.
- This response might be perceived as dismissive of his immediate feelings and can **exacerbate his sense of hopelessness** and isolation.
*"It must be tough having received this diagnosis; however, new cancer therapies show increased efficacy and excellent outcomes."*
- This statement moves too quickly to treatment efficacy without adequately addressing the patient's current **emotional state and fatalism**.
- While factual, it **lacks empathy** for his personal feelings of blame and hopelessness, potentially making him feel unheard.
*"We are going to need to treat your lung cancer. I am here to help you throughout the process."*
- This response is **too directive and authoritarian**, which can alienate a patient who is already feeling guilty and resistant to treatment.
- It fails to acknowledge his stated feelings of "no hope now" or his disinterest in treatment, which are critical to address before discussing the necessity of treatment.
*"I respect your decision and we will not administer any treatment. Let me know if I can help in any way."*
- While respecting patient autonomy is vital, immediately accepting a patient's decision to refuse treatment without exploring the underlying reasons (e.g., guilt, hopelessness, lack of information) is **premature and potentially harmful**.
- The physician has a responsibility to ensure the patient is making an informed decision, especially for a rapidly progressing condition like small cell lung cancer.
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions US Medical PG Question 4: A 56-year-old man presents to the family medicine office since he has been having difficulty keeping his blood pressure under control for the past month. He has a significant medical history of hypertension, coronary artery disease, and diabetes mellitus. He has a prescription for losartan, atenolol, and metformin. The blood pressure is 178/100 mm Hg, the heart rate is 92/min, and the respiratory rate is 16/min. The physical examination is positive for a grade II holosystolic murmur at the left sternal border. He also has diminished sensation in his toes. Which of the following statements is the most effective means of communication between the doctor and the patient?
- A. “What is causing your blood pressure to be elevated?” (Correct Answer)
- B. “Have you been taking your medications as prescribed?”
- C. “Would you like us to consider trying a different medication for your blood pressure?”
- D. “You are taking your medications as prescribed, aren’t you?”
- E. “Why are you not taking your medication?”
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions Explanation: ***“What is causing your blood pressure to be elevated?”***
- This is an **open-ended question** that encourages the patient to share their perspective, concerns, and potential reasons for the elevated blood pressure, fostering a **patient-centered approach**.
- It allows the physician to understand the patient's individual circumstances, medication adherence, lifestyle factors, or other contributing issues without being judgmental or leading.
*“Have you been taking your medications as prescribed?”*
- This is a **closed-ended question** that primarily elicits a "yes" or "no" answer, providing limited insight into the patient's actual adherence and the underlying reasons for non-adherence.
- While important, phrasing it this way might make the patient feel interrogated or judged, potentially hindering honest communication.
*“Would you like us to consider trying a different medication for your blood pressure?”*
- This question prematurely jumps to a solution without fully understanding the cause of the elevated blood pressure and the patient's perspective.
- It bypasses the crucial step of investigating potential reasons for poor blood pressure control, which could include non-adherence, lifestyle factors, or secondary hypertension, rather than necessarily a medication efficacy issue.
*“You are taking your medications as prescribed, aren’t you?”*
- This is a **leading question** that implies an expectation and can make the patient feel pressured to answer affirmatively, even if they are not consistently taking their medication.
- Such phrasing can create a defensive environment and discourage the patient from openly discussing adherence challenges.
*“Why are you not taking your medication?”*
- This is a **direct and accusatory question** that implies blame and can immediately put the patient on the defensive, making them less likely to be honest or forthcoming about their medication habits.
- It fails to create a supportive or collaborative atmosphere, which is essential for effective patient-physician communication.
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions US Medical PG Question 5: A 78-year-old woman with a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) presents to the emergency department with slurred speech, diplopia and dizziness that has persisted for eight hours. Upon further questioning you find that since her CVA one year ago, she has struggled with depression and poor nutrition. Her dose of paroxetine has been recently increased. Additionally, she is on anti-seizure prophylaxis due to sequelae from her CVA. CT scan reveals an old infarct with no acute pathology. Vital signs are within normal limits. On physical exam you find the patient appears frail. She is confused and has nystagmus and an ataxic gait. What would be an appropriate next step?
- A. Lower the dose of her anti-seizure medication (Correct Answer)
- B. Start total parenteral nutrition (TPN)
- C. Administer tissue plasminogen activator (tPA)
- D. Start trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX)
- E. Increase the dose of her anti-seizure medication
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions Explanation: ***Lower the dose of her anti-seizure medication***
- The patient presents with classic symptoms of **anti-seizure medication toxicity**, including **slurred speech, diplopia, dizziness, nystagmus, and ataxia**, which are common with drugs like **phenytoin** or **carbamazepine**.
- Given her **frailty**, poor nutrition, and recent CVA, she is likely more susceptible to adverse drug effects, making a dose reduction the most appropriate next step to resolve the toxicity.
*Start total parenteral nutrition (TPN)*
- While the patient has **poor nutrition**, her acute symptoms are neurological and suggest a drug-related issue, not a primary nutritional emergency requiring TPN.
- TPN carries its own risks and is not indicated as an immediate treatment for drug toxicity or acute neurological symptoms in this context.
*Administer tissue plasminogen activator (tPA)*
- The patient's symptoms have been present for **eight hours**, exceeding the typical **time window for thrombolytic therapy** for acute ischemic stroke, which is generally 3 to 4.5 hours.
- The **CT scan shows an old infarct** with no acute pathology, ruling out an acute ischemic stroke that would warrant tPA.
*Start trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX)*
- There is **no indication of an infection** in the provided clinical picture; her symptoms are neurological and consistent with medication toxicity.
- Administering an antibiotic without evidence of infection is inappropriate and could lead to unnecessary side effects.
*Increase the dose of her anti-seizure medication*
- The patient is exhibiting clear signs of **anti-seizure medication toxicity** (slurred speech, diplopia, dizziness, nystagmus, ataxia).
- Increasing the dose would exacerbate these symptoms and could lead to more severe adverse events, making it a dangerous and inappropriate action.
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions US Medical PG Question 6: A 28-year-old male presents to his primary care physician with complaints of intermittent abdominal pain and alternating bouts of constipation and diarrhea. His medical chart is not significant for any past medical problems or prior surgeries. He is not prescribed any current medications. Which of the following questions would be the most useful next question in eliciting further history from this patient?
- A. "Does the diarrhea typically precede the constipation, or vice-versa?"
- B. "Is the diarrhea foul-smelling?"
- C. "Please rate your abdominal pain on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the worst pain of your life"
- D. "Are the symptoms worse in the morning or at night?"
- E. "Can you tell me more about the symptoms you have been experiencing?" (Correct Answer)
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions Explanation: ***Can you tell me more about the symptoms you have been experiencing?***
- This **open-ended question** encourages the patient to provide a **comprehensive narrative** of their symptoms, including details about onset, frequency, duration, alleviating/aggravating factors, and associated symptoms, which is crucial for diagnosis.
- In a patient presenting with vague, intermittent symptoms like alternating constipation and diarrhea, allowing them to elaborate freely can reveal important clues that might not be captured by more targeted questions.
*Does the diarrhea typically precede the constipation, or vice-versa?*
- While knowing the sequence of symptoms can be helpful in understanding the **pattern of bowel dysfunction**, it is a very specific question that might overlook other important aspects of the patient's experience.
- It prematurely narrows the focus without first obtaining a broad understanding of the patient's overall symptomatic picture.
*Is the diarrhea foul-smelling?*
- Foul-smelling diarrhea can indicate **malabsorption** or **bacterial overgrowth**, which are important to consider in some gastrointestinal conditions.
- However, this is a **specific symptom inquiry** that should follow a more general exploration of the patient's symptoms, as it may not be relevant if other crucial details are missed.
*Please rate your abdominal pain on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the worst pain of your life*
- Quantifying pain intensity is useful for assessing the **severity of discomfort** and monitoring changes over time.
- However, for a patient with intermittent rather than acute, severe pain, understanding the **character, location, and triggers** of the pain is often more diagnostically valuable than just a numerical rating initially.
*Are the symptoms worse in the morning or at night?*
- Diurnal variation can be relevant in certain conditions, such as inflammatory bowel diseases where nocturnal symptoms might be more concerning, or functional disorders whose symptoms might be stress-related.
- This is another **specific question** that should come after gathering a more complete initial picture of the patient's symptoms to ensure no key information is overlooked.
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions US Medical PG Question 7: A 29-year-old woman, gravida 1, para 0, at 33 weeks' gestation comes to her doctor for a routine visit. Her pregnancy has been uncomplicated. She has systemic lupus erythematosus and has had no flares during her pregnancy. She does not smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or use illicit drugs. Current medications include iron, vitamin supplements, and hydroxychloroquine. Her temperature is 37.2°C (98.9°F), pulse is 70/min, respirations are 17/min, and blood pressure is 134/70 mm Hg. She appears well. Physical examination shows no abnormalities. Ultrasound demonstrates fetal rhythmic breathing for > 30 seconds, amniotic fluid with deepest vertical pocket of 1 cm, one distinct fetal body movement over 30 minutes, and no episodes of extremity extension over 30 minutes. Nonstress test is reactive and reassuring. Which of the following is the next best step in management?
- A. Administer corticosteroids and continue close monitoring (Correct Answer)
- B. Perform cesarean delivery
- C. Discontinue hydroxychloroquine and continue close monitoring
- D. Induction of labor
- E. Reassurance with expectant management
Risk-benefit analysis of interventions Explanation: ***Administer corticosteroids and continue close monitoring***
- The combination of a **nonreactive nonstress test (NST)** and an **amniotic fluid index (AFI) < 5 cm** (deepest vertical pocket of 1 cm) indicates **oligohydramnios** and potential fetal compromise, necessitating corticosteroid administration for lung maturity and close monitoring.
- While the NST is reassuring, the oligohydramnios is a significant concern that warrants intervention to optimize fetal outcomes and prepare for potential preterm delivery.
*Perform cesarean delivery*
- This step is **overly aggressive** given the reactive nonstress test and stable maternal condition.
- There are no immediate signs of **acute fetal distress** that would necessitate emergent delivery.
*Discontinue hydroxychloroquine and continue close monitoring*
- **Hydroxychloroquine** is safe and often continued during pregnancy for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, as it helps prevent flares and is not associated with adverse fetal outcomes.
- Discontinuing it without a clear indication could lead to a **maternal SLE flare**, which could be detrimental to both mother and fetus.
*Induction of labor*
- Induction of labor is not indicated at this gestational age (33 weeks) unless there is clear evidence of **significant fetal distress** or maternal complications.
- While there is oligohydramnios, the **reactive NST** suggests sufficient fetal reserve to allow for corticosteroid administration to promote lung maturity first.
*Reassurance with expectant management*
- The finding of **oligohydramnios** (deepest vertical pocket of 1 cm) is a significant concern, as it is associated with increased risks of **cord compression**, fetal growth restriction, and adverse perinatal outcomes.
- Therefore, expectant management without intervention would be **inappropriate** given this finding.
More Risk-benefit analysis of interventions US Medical PG questions available in the OnCourse app. Practice MCQs, flashcards, and get detailed explanations.
