Transplant Surgery Mock Oral Exam Checklist
A complete faculty, peer, or self-directed checklist for simulating the public examination architecture while avoiding recalled content and protecting donor and recipient privacy.
Key takeaways
- Reproduce two 50-minute sessions with a real break and different examiner pairs.
- Mix general transplant topics, organ-specific kidney/liver depth according to the candidate’s profile, and unpredictable discussion of the three submitted cases.
- Use original scenarios only and score observable educational behaviors rather than claiming an official TACC result.
- Protect privacy by using newly written, fully de-identified case reconstructions and no official or clinical documents.
Mock design
Reproduce the public architecture
| Element | Mock requirement |
|---|---|
| Session 1 | 50 uninterrupted minutes with Examiner A and Examiner B roles. |
| Break | A realistic reset period with no case review, coaching, or secure-content discussion. |
| Session 2 | 50 uninterrupted minutes with Examiner C and Examiner D roles. |
| General content | Procurement, donor-derived risk, infection, immunosuppression, adherence/psychosocial issues, ethics, and cross-organ complications. |
| Organ-specific content | Kidney and/or liver depth aligned with current public TACC language, the candidate’s training, and current practice. |
| Submitted cases | All three de-identified educational reconstructions are eligible for unpredictable discussion. |
| Scoring | Independent educational ratings by each examiner role, followed by behavior-level review—not an official TACC composite. |
Examiner preparation
Build original cases that test decisions rather than trivia
- Each scenario has one controlling clinical decision and at least three plausible branches.
- The stem contains only enough information to begin; examiners provide additional data in response to purposeful questions.
- At least one case requires recipient selection or listing judgment.
- At least one case requires donor or organ acceptance and procurement reasoning.
- At least one case requires detailed operative description and a bailout.
- At least one case requires urgent graft-rescue or unstable-patient management.
- At least one case requires immunology, biopsy, or rejection-versus-infection reasoning.
- At least one case requires donor-derived disease, adherence, disclosure, allocation, or another ethical/communication judgment.
- No scenario is copied from a secure examination, recalled stem, or official candidate material.
Personal Case Uploads
Integrate the three submitted cases unpredictably
The candidate should not know which session or examiner will introduce a personal case. A case can begin with recipient selection, organ acceptance, operation, postoperative complication, outcome, or a changed variable. This prevents memorization of a single opening speech.
Use only the candidate’s new de-identified educational dossier. Examiners must not request the official TACC submission, surgical log, medical record, donor/recipient identifiers, exact dates, or peer-review material.
| Entry point | Examiner prompt type |
|---|---|
| Why this case? | Ask what transplant judgment or complication makes the case educational and what the candidate learned. |
| Recipient/donor decision | Change candidacy, organ quality, antibody risk, transmissible risk, urgency, or consent. |
| Operation | Ask for exposure, control, reconstruction, reperfusion, endpoint, and bailout; then introduce unexpected anatomy or instability. |
| Complication | Enter at the first sign of deterioration and require time-based differential, stabilization, testing, intervention, response, and escalation. |
| Outcome | Ask about long-term graft and patient outcome, immunosuppression, recurrence, infection, malignancy, adherence, and what would change future practice. |
Variation and consistency
Use four distinct examiner styles without creating unfairness
Examiner A — concise clinical progression
Moves quickly through recipient, donor, operation, and postoperative decisions; interrupts long speeches.
Examiner B — technical depth
Asks for anatomy, control, reconstruction, endpoint, complication, and bailout.
Examiner C — immunology and longitudinal care
Tests antibodies, rejection, infection, immunosuppression, recurrence, toxicity, and surveillance.
Examiner D — adaptability and ethics
Changes one important variable and tests disclosure, adherence, allocation, living-donor autonomy, transfer, or limits of salvage.
Faculty and peer checklist
Follow disciplined examiner behavior
- Read the stem neutrally and do not reveal the intended answer through tone or facial reaction.
- Answer purposeful candidate questions with prepared data; do not reward a broad fishing expedition with every available result.
- Redirect a prolonged answer respectfully so the mock tests breadth and pacing.
- Provide changed variables clearly and require the candidate to update the plan.
- Do not teach, debate, reassure, or disclose the score during the timed session.
- Document exact observable behaviors and high-impact moments rather than general impressions alone.
- Score independently before discussing the candidate with the other examiner role.
- Keep all personal-case material private and fully de-identified.
Readiness
Candidate checklist before the timer starts
- I know the current public two-session TACC structure and do not expect a fabricated fixed question count.
- I can open recipient, donor, organ-offer, graft-dysfunction, infection, and ethics cases with a stable framework.
- I can describe procurement, kidney, liver, and relevant extended-organ operations through endpoint and bailout.
- I can distinguish technical, hemodynamic, immunologic, infectious, toxic, recurrent, and systemic causes by timing.
- I can defend all three personal cases without official documents or identifying details.
- I can accept a changed variable, correct an unsafe answer, and continue without defensiveness.
- I can close every case with reassessment, disposition, immunosuppression, prophylaxis, surveillance, communication, and follow-up.
- My mock environment reproduces the privacy, technology, and interruption constraints expected online.
After each session
Use a transparent educational scorecard
| Dimension | Examiner notes |
|---|---|
| Clinical framing | Did the candidate identify the transplant decision, timing, recipient, donor/graft, and immediate threat? |
| Selection judgment | Were benefit, contraindications, donor risk, immunology, anatomy, consent, policy, alternatives, and capability balanced? |
| Technical execution | Were control, protection, reconstruction, reperfusion, endpoint, and bailout explicit? |
| Graft-dysfunction reasoning | Were technical, immunologic, infectious, toxic, recurrent, and systemic causes prioritized appropriately? |
| Complication rescue | Did stabilization, source/flow control, reassessment, and escalation occur without delay? |
| Longitudinal ownership | Were immunosuppression, prophylaxis, recurrence, malignancy, adherence, systemic risk, and follow-up addressed? |
| Communication and ethics | Were consent, disclosure, donor autonomy, allocation, team leadership, and patient goals handled clearly? |
| Adaptability | Did new information change the plan appropriately, including direct correction of unsafe answers? |
Feedback sequence
Debrief after both sessions—not during the break
- 01
Candidate self-assessment
Name the two strongest and two weakest observable moments before hearing examiner feedback.
- 02
Independent examiner summaries
Each examiner provides the highest-impact safety, judgment, technical, communication, and adaptability observations.
- 03
Agreement and discrepancy
Identify repeated signals across examiners and meaningful differences caused by case or style.
- 04
Ranked repairs
Choose no more than three behaviors with the greatest expected benefit.
- 05
Replacement language
Write the exact concise phrase or framework that should replace each miss.
- 06
Retest plan
Assign a new scenario and date for testing the repair; do not treat feedback as complete until behavior changes.
Green-light signals
Define practical readiness without pretending to predict certification
- The candidate completes both 50-minute sessions with stable structure and no major decline in safety or pacing.
- Critical technical and rescue behaviors appear without examiner rescue.
- The candidate can switch among general topics, kidney/liver depth, and personal cases without losing the clinical frame.
- All three personal cases remain accurate, consistent, adaptable, and fully de-identified.
- The candidate corrects errors directly and does not repeat the same dangerous pattern later in the mock.
- Operation descriptions consistently include control, protection, endpoint, and bailout.
- Graft dysfunction is approached with a time-based differential before reflexive rejection treatment.
- Communication, ethics, donor autonomy, disclosure, adherence, and institutional limits are visible.
- Current TACC logistics and source documents have been verified directly.
Do not overtrain
Use the final 72 hours for stability
One final concise review
Review the public format, personal-case memory maps, operation framework, unstable-patient sequence, and top error-ledger repairs.
No new recalled content
Do not solicit secure questions, add unverified protocols, or change answer structure because of last-minute anecdotes.
Technology and room confirmation
Verify the actual device, network, identification, link, room, coverage, and contact instructions.
Physiologic readiness
Protect sleep, hydration, nutrition, movement, medication routine, and a calm pre-session buffer.
Professional objective
Enter prepared to show safe, adaptable independent transplant judgment—not to deliver a memorized perfect performance.
Put the framework under pressure
Rehearse the exact decisions in your own cases.
Voice-first cases, adaptive examiner follow-up, imaging, complications, and structured educational feedback for transplant surgery.
Questions candidates ask
Frequently asked questions
How many full mock exams should I complete?
A practical target is at least four complete two-session simulations after foundational study, with additional 50-minute sessions and shorter drills beforehand. Each mock should produce a small number of repairs that are retested.
Should examiners use my real official TACC cases?
Use only newly written, fully de-identified educational reconstructions. Do not share the official submission, surgical log, medical record, exact dates, donor or recipient identifiers, or peer-review material with a practice platform or casual mock examiner.
Can a mock produce an official pass/fail result?
No. It can show whether educational behaviors are stable across realistic sessions, but it cannot reproduce TACC’s official questions, examiner judgments, rubric, threshold, committee review, or conditions.
Does SurgiTest reproduce TACC questions or guarantee certification?
No. SurgiTest uses original educational scenarios informed by public examination structure and accepted transplant principles. It does not solicit or reproduce secure examination content, calculate an official TACC score, predict certification, guarantee a result, or claim affiliation with or endorsement by TACC or ASTS.
Source transparency
Official references
Board requirements, dates, and candidate instructions can change. Confirm current details directly with TACC and the Board’s candidate portal.
Continue preparing