Sexual Medicine and Medical Collaboration · Clinical Scanning

Read It Again

Three client accounts, written the way clients actually talk. Click the fragments that should trigger medical inquiry. One of the three accounts contains nothing that warrants it.

What this exercise practises

Hearing a structural finding inside a psychological account, at the pace speech happens, and separating the findings that discriminate from the ones that are real but non-specific.

Over-reading is scored as an error in the same way that missing a finding is. Every clickable fragment carries a note explaining why it does or does not belong on the list.

Estimated time to complete this exercise: 18 minutes

1Account one
2Account two
3Account three
4Close

Before you begin

How this one works

Three client accounts, written as the client would say it. Click any fragment that should trigger medical inquiry. Click it again to unselect.
The underlined fragments are all clickable. Some are structural findings, some are plausible psychological material, and the exercise is the discrimination rather than the volume.
One of the three accounts contains nothing that warrants referral. Over-reading is scored as an error in the same way that missing a finding is.
Nothing is graded and nothing is recorded. Reloading starts it again.

Clients may present these concerns with significant shame, avoidance or confusion, sometimes years after onset, which means the structural finding usually arrives as an aside inside a psychological account. The skill is noticing it in running speech, at the pace speech happens.

References

  1. Bella, A. J., Lee, J. C., Grober, E. D., Carrier, S., Benard, F., & Brock, G. B. (2018). 2018 Canadian Urological Association guideline for Peyronie’s disease and congenital penile curvature. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 12(5), E197–E209. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5255
  2. Hellstrom, W. J. G., Feldman, R., Rosen, R. C., Smith, T., Kaufman, G., & Tursi, J. (2013). Bother and distress associated with Peyronie’s disease: Validation of the Peyronie’s disease questionnaire. The Journal of Urology, 190(2), 627–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.01.090
  3. Nehra, A., Alterowitz, R., Culkin, D. J., Faraday, M. M., Hakim, L. S., Heidelbaugh, J. J., Khera, M., McVary, K. T., Miner, M. M., Nelson, C. J., Sadeghi-Nejad, H., Seftel, A. D., & Shindel, A. W. (2015). Peyronie’s disease: AUA guideline. The Journal of Urology, 194(3), 745–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.05.098
  4. Rosato, E., Sciarra, F., Minnetti, M., Degjoni, A., & Venneri, M. A. (2024). Clinical management of phimosis in adults. International Journal of Impotence Research. Advance online publication.
  5. Rosen, R., Catania, J., Lue, T., Althof, S., Henne, J., Hellstrom, W., & Levine, L. (2008). Impact of Peyronie’s disease on sexual and psychosocial functioning: Qualitative findings in patients and controls. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5(8), 1977–1984. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00883.x