Diagnostic Training

Interview a patient, gather collateral history, uncover the diagnosis, and deliver it with clarity and compassion. A structured diagnostic assessment with supervisor feedback on your clinical reasoning.

What you practise

• Conduct a systematic diagnostic psychiatric interview covering all relevant domains
• Screen for conditions beyond the presenting complaint — do not accept the surface narrative at face value
• Gather and integrate collateral history when available
• Formulate a primary diagnosis with supporting evidence and differential diagnoses
• Recognise comorbidities and medication response patterns as diagnostic clues
• Deliver a psychiatric diagnosis with clarity, empathy, and psychoeducation

Who you can meet

• Erik Lindqvist, 28 — 28-year-old man referred by his GP for persistent low mood and difficulty functioning at work. His girlfriend encouraged him to seek help.
• Karin Lindqvist (Erik's mother), 56 — Erik's mother. Available in the waiting room for collateral history.
• Saga Nyström, 26 — 26-year-old veterinary nurse who self-referred for panic attacks and anxiety after a traumatic event eight months ago.
• Viktor Lindberg, 19 — 19-year-old engineering student recently discharged after a first psychotic episode. Adopted. On olanzapine 20mg. His adoptive father Henrik is in the waiting room. Minimal insight — strong conviction, frustrated that nobody will examine his evidence.

What the feedback looks at

• History-taking breadth
• Diagnostic reasoning
• Use of collateral information
• Risk and safety enquiry
• Rapport and communication
• Clarity and accessibility
• Compassion and sensitivity
• Shared decision-making

Rated against: Adapted for PsychBase from the common elements of structured psychiatric interviewing, clinical assessment teaching and diagnosis-communication practice; the wording is our own and no instrument is reproduced. There is no single published competence scale for diagnostic interviewing to adapt: structured interviews such as the SCID standardise the questions asked, not the quality of the interviewer, so these dimensions are synthesised from shared assessment practice rather than taken from one validated tool. DSM-5 criteria are referenced conceptually and never reproduced verbatim. The rubric scores the process of interviewing and reasoning — breadth of history, hypothesis testing, use of an informant, risk enquiry and how findings are communicated — and deliberately does not score agreement with any diagnostic label; a well-conducted interview that ends in acknowledged uncertainty can score highly, and a lucky label cannot. Case-specific expectations live with each case, not here. Scores are generated by an AI supervisor, are not equivalent to a trained human rater, are formative only, never gate progression, and imply no endorsement by any guideline body, instrument author or organisation.

This lab is for clinical training. The patient is generated by an AI language model from a written case; no real patient and no patient data are involved. Browsing is open; starting a session needs a free account.