Skip to main content

MRCPsych CASC

MRCPsych CASC


The Royal College of Psychiatrists first introduced the CASC in June 2008. It is based on the OSCE style of examination but is a novel method of assessment as it tests complex psychiatric skills in a series of observed interactions.


OSCE (Observed Structured Clinical Examination) is a format of examination where candidates rotate through a series of stations, each station is marked by a different examiner. Before they introduced the CASC, candidates appeared for OSCE in Part 1 and the ‘Long Case’ in Part 2 of the MRCPsych examinations. The purpose of introducing CASC was to merge the two assessments.3 The first CASC diet tested skills in 12 stations on one circuit.

Subsequently, 16 stations have been used in two circuits - one comprising eight ‘single’ and the other containing four pairs of ‘linked’ scenarios. They provide feedback to unsuccessful candidates as ‘Areas of Concern’.4 The pass rate has dropped from almost 60% in the first edition to around 30% in the most recent examination (Figure 1). I do not know the reasons for this. The cost of organizing the examination has increased and candidates will pay £885 to sit the examination in 2010 in the United Kingdom. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ADVOKATE: A Tool for Assessment of Eyewitness Evidence

ADVOCATE: A Tool for Assessment of Eyewitness Evidence It is a tool designed to assess the eyewitness evidence that how much it is reliable. It requires the user to respond to several statements/questions. Forensic psychologist, police or investigative officer can do it. The mnemonic ADVOKATE stands for: A = amount of time under observation (event and act) D = distance from suspect V = visibility (night-day, lighting) O = obstruction to the view of the witness K = known or seen before when and where (suspect) A = any special reason for remembering the subject T = time-lapse (how long has it been since witness saw suspect) E = error or material discrepancy between the description given first or any subsequent accounts by a witness.  Working with suspects (college.police.uk)

Diagnostic test for catatonia, the lorazepam challenge test

Benzodiazepines are the mainstay of the treatment of catatonia and are also helpful as a diagnostic probe. A positive Lorazepam Challenge Test validates the diagnosis of catatonia. After we examine the patient for signs of catatonia, 1 or 2 mg of lorazepam is administered intravenously. After 5 minutes, the patient is re-examined. If there has been no change, a second dose is given, and the patient is again reassessed (46, 78). A positive response is a marked reduction (e.g., at least 50%) of catatonic signs and symptoms, as measured with a standardized rating scale. Favorable responses usually occur within 10 min (46). If lorazepam is given intramuscularly or per os, the interval for the second dose should be longer: 15′ and 30′, respectively. Many clinicians will share the experience that a “lorazepam test” not only confirms the diagnosis of catatonia but that it also makes the underlying psychopathology apparent “by permitting mute patients to speak” (79). Analogous to the lorazepa

Assessment of Fitness to Plead (Capacity to Stand Trial) Pritchard Criteria

Capacity to Stand Trial (Prichard Criteria) Introduction To stand trial, the accused should be able to describe his behaviour and whereabouts at the time of the alleged offence, understands what happens in the courtroom and understands the role of the courtroom personnel, instruct his solicitor, distinguish between various pleas and understand the range and nature of verdicts. Pritchard Criteria In the law of England and Wales, fitness to plead is the capacity of a defendant in criminal proceedings to comprehend the course of those proceedings. Its equivalent in the United States and Canada is ‘competence to stand trial.’ If the defendant raises fitness to plead, a judge will decide whether an individual fit to plead, usually following a psychiatric evaluation. To decide whether a patient is fit to plead, it is important to determine the extent to which the defendant can:  Understand the nature of the charge Understand the difference between pleading guilty and not guilty Follow the co