SCA practice case · Video consultation

“I’ve read things about the MMR — I’m not sure I want my daughter to have it”

Video consultation Child patient Someone else speaking Typical Children & young peopleProfessional & ethical dilemmas

The candidate brief

This is what you would read in the 3-minute window before the patient connects. Read it once, note two or three hypotheses and one thing you must not miss, then stop.

Patient
Lauren Hill · 32 years · female (re: Mia Hill, 13 months)
Setting
Video consultation — a mother hesitant about her child’s MMR vaccine.
Past history
  • Nil relevant
Medication
  • Nil recorded
Allergies
NKDA
Recent notes
⚠ Child health record: Mia’s 12-month vaccinations outstanding. Mother has asked to discuss before booking.
Reason for contact
Video consultation: “questions about Mia’s MMR”.

Practise this case

The full case is in the Hot Seat with the Gold plan. You get a 12-minute timer, a role-player script with facts released only when asked, examiner checkpoints by the three RCGP domains, a model consultation and the guidance behind it.

What this case tests

Show the learning points (spoiler: read after you have practised)
Vaccine hesitancy is best met by EXPLORING rather than lecturing: elicit the parent’s specific concerns, what they have read and where, their underlying fears (harming their child either way), and their current understanding first, using a respectful, motivational-interviewing-style approach — because a thoughtful, anxious parent who is lectured or shamed disengages, while one whose concerns are genuinely heard and addressed is far more likely to vaccinate. Address the AUTISM myth accurately and non-defensively: the original claim came from a study found to be FRAUDULENT and RETRACTED by The Lancet in 2010 (its author struck off the medical register), and subsequent large, robust studies of millions of children show NO link between MMR and autism (e.g. Hviid, Annals of Internal Medicine 2019) — acknowledging why the fear persists rather than dismissing the parent for raising it. Address the "immune overload" worry (a child’s immune system handles vast numbers of antigens daily; the few in vaccines are a tiny fraction, and combined MMR — now MMRV at 12 and 18 months under the UKHSA schedule from 1 January 2026 — is safe, effective and reduces injections) and explain simply how vaccination primes immunity. Balance the discussion with the REAL risks of the diseases — measles (pneumonia, encephalitis, deafness, death, rare SSPE), mumps (meningitis/orchitis), rubella in pregnancy (congenital defects) — and the importance of herd immunity and the outbreaks that follow falling uptake, framing the choice as small vaccine risk versus real disease risk. Crucially, RESPECT the parent’s AUTONOMY: give a clear, honest recommendation without coercion or shaming, and if she is not ready, offer reliable written information, time, a follow-up and an open door (vaccination can be caught up), documenting the discussion, checking for genuine contraindications (Green Book) and ensuring consent is informed, voluntary and given by a person with parental responsibility (Green Book chapter 2; GMC Decision making and consent 2020) — a trust-preserving encounter is more likely to lead to vaccination than pressure. The hidden agenda is an anxious, thoughtful parent seeking trustworthy guidance, not an ideological refuser; engage, inform warmly, respect autonomy and build trust.

The guidance behind it

Similar SCA cases

Browse all 359 cases by experience group →

gpreasoning.uk is not affiliated with or endorsed by the RCGP. Our cases are original teaching material written for practice; none is an exam recall. For anything official about the SCA, check the RCGP SCA pages.