Tips: For main issue questions, focus on the opening lines of the discussion.

Why the other options are wrong:

• The clinic is losing money and may need to close.: The complaint is delayed access to care. The speakers do not say the clinic is losing money or facing closure.
• Too many walk-in patients are showing up without appointments.: Unpredictable walk-in volumes and overcrowding are concerns about bringing walk-ins back, not the current problem that prompted discussion after going appointment-only.
• The clinic needs to hire more doctors to meet demand.: The discussion considers limited walk-in hours and follow-up procedures. Hiring more doctors is not identified as the prompting problem.

Correct Answer: Adding limited walk-in hours because some patients, especially seniors, said they could not get timely care.

Why this is correct: Limited walk-in mornings are proposed as a hybrid approach after patients report delayed access. This retains appointments while adding some walk-in access.

Tips: Connect the exact proposal to the condition or reason stated for it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Hiring additional front-desk staff to manage scheduling.: Additional front-desk hiring is not the proposed approach.
• Extending the clinic's evening hours for appointments.: Evening appointment extensions are not proposed.
• Moving to an entirely walk-in model with no appointments.: A fully walk-in service without appointments exceeds the limited hybrid proposal.

Correct Answer: Unpredictable walk-in patient volumes could stretch staffing too thin.

Why this is correct: Walk-in volumes would be unpredictable and could stretch the team too thin while the clinic needs to maintain nurse-to-patient ratios.

Tips: Connect the exact proposal to the condition or reason stated for it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Renovating the waiting area would cost too much.: Waiting-area renovation costs are not this concern.
• Doctors would refuse to see walk-in patients.: Doctor refusal to see walk-ins is not claimed.
• Cancelled appointments would reduce revenue.: Lost revenue from cancelled appointments is not this concern.

Correct Answer: Walk-in hours only two mornings a week.

Why this is correct: The proposal is walk-ins only two mornings a week, with Tuesday and Thursday suggested as examples.

Tips: Focus on proposals introduced with what if.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A telephone triage system where patients call before coming in.: Telephone triage is not proposed.
• Offering walk-ins every afternoon and appointments every morning.: Daily afternoon walk-ins are not proposed.
• Alternating between walk-in and appointment days each week.: Alternating whole appointment and walk-in days is not the proposed schedule.

Correct Answer: Cap the number of walk-in patients each morning to avoid overcrowding.

Why this is correct: Support is conditional on capping walk-in numbers each morning, perhaps at fifteen or twenty, to avoid the earlier overcrowding problem.

Tips: Connect the exact proposal to the condition or reason stated for it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Run the pilot for at least one year.: A one-year duration is not this condition.
• Allow only seniors to use walk-in hours.: Restricting eligibility to seniors is not proposed.
• Charge walk-in patients an extra fee.: An extra walk-in fee is not proposed.

Correct Answer: Use a clear process for tracking follow-ups.

Why this is correct: A clear process for tracking follow-ups is needed because follow-ups can fall through the cracks. Booking every follow-up before departure is not specified.

Tips: Connect the exact proposal to the condition or reason stated for it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• They must complete a satisfaction survey.: A satisfaction survey is not the follow-up tracking process discussed.
• They must receive a written summary of their visit.: A written visit summary is not the stated process.
• They must pay for the visit in full.: Full payment before departure is not required in this discussion.

Correct Answer: Doctors can prepare and review patient charts beforehand.

Why this is correct: Appointments let doctors prepare and review charts beforehand. This is contrasted with walk-in continuity risks.

Tips: Connect the exact proposal to the condition or reason stated for it.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Doctors can see every patient without needing advance notice.: The stated advantage is preparation before a booked visit, not seeing everyone without advance notice.
• Doctors can stop keeping records of later follow-ups.: The discussion stresses follow-up tracking for continuity, rather than abandoning those records.
• Doctors can treat everyone without reviewing their history.: Reviewing charts beforehand is the explicit advantage; treating patients without reviewing their history reverses it.

Correct Answer: Resume the discussion next time after identifying ideas to work with.

Why this is correct: The group says it has enough to work with and will pick the discussion up next time. This is a continuation, not a permanent model choice or a specified pilot agreement.

Tips: Distinguish proposals from a final decision in the closing remark.

Why the other options are wrong:

• A permanent switch back to a full walk-in model.: A permanent full walk-in switch is not agreed.
• Hiring two new doctors to reduce appointment wait times.: Hiring two doctors is not agreed.
• Keeping the current appointment-only schedule unchanged.: Keeping the appointment-only system unchanged is not decided.