Struggling With Rambling Answers? Use the 3‑Point Structure In Your Consultant Interview
9 Feb 2026 · 17 min
In this episode of the Ace Your Consultant Interview podcast, hosts Tessa Davis and Becky Platt address three core interview challenges for trainee and locum consultants. First, they dissect a student’s concern about the “tell me about yourself” question, warning against a chronological, CV‑heavy recital and recommending a curated, skills‑based narrative that highlights higher‑level training and unique selling points while staying concise. Second, they evaluate a student‑submitted duty‑of‑candour example, confirming its suitability, outlining the full duty‑of‑candour process (apology, consequences, rectification, patient response, governance, reflection) and stressing the need to distance oneself from the error while still demonstrating accountability. Third, they discuss how to answer a diversity‑in‑leadership question, emphasizing representation of patients and junior staff, personal reflections, and concrete EDI projects. Throughout, they champion the 3‑point answer structure—anchoring the response, providing breadth without overwhelming depth, and ensuring appropriate timing (≈45‑60 seconds per point)—as a universal tool to prevent rambling, improve panel scoring, and keep answers clear and memorable. The episode blends practical advice, example analysis, and a concise tip‑and‑trick segment to equip listeners with actionable interview strategies.
Chapters
Hello and welcome to the Ace Your Consultant Interview podcast. I'm Tessa Davis.
And I'm Becky Platt.
And if you're a final year trainee or a locum consultant and you want to prep, not panic, then you're in the right place. Welcome back to the Ace Your Consultant Interview podcast. I am here with the fabulous Becky Platt. Welcome, Becky. Hello.
Hi, lovely to be here.
Great. So we're going to get stuck right in. First up, we are looking at student question of the week. This is a question that one of the academy students has asked us. about their interview prep. I'm going to read the question that we've got, which is a great one. The question is, in one of my pre-interview meetings, one of the panel members said that people seem to spend ages reeling off all their CV highlights. It seems she gets annoyed by this, and so I'm worried about giving a full perm answer to this question, which I assume is the first tell me about yourself question. Any advice? Or thoughts on this?
I'm slightly struggling to understand why an interview panel member wouldn't want to hear about somebody's CV highlights.
I suppose, yeah. Maybe that is something to think about. Like, what did they actually say to you? Because maybe it was just taken in that way. But yeah, it does seem weird. Why would you be on an interview panel if you didn't want to hear what people have done? So yeah, that's a good point. I think it probably is worth exploring with them. Okay, what did they actually say?
Yeah, did you actually mean that? I suppose it's just kind of thinking it through a bit. Do they mean actually, I don't want to hear a full chronology of your whole career, you know, from, you know, my medical school? Yeah, exactly. You know, your F2 stuff, um, you know, highlights of your A-levels, or, you know, those kind of things. Um, but I think sometimes people do fall into the trap of going just a bit too detailed on their CV. And actually, what we want to hear about is, you know, your higher-level training and anything that sets you apart from the average interview candidate. So, I suppose that is worth thinking about.
Yeah, because you're not trying to read— and people do that quite commonly, don't they? I first worked here, I did my first rotation here, and then I went to here, and then I did this, this, and this, and this. And it is boring. And actually, they could read your CV if they wanted to see that. Your job is to give them a curated version of that, which is the highlights.
Yeah.
So, I think it would be a mistake to not say anything that you've done because then, well, it's not really a job interview, is it then, if you're not telling? So, I think, yeah, probably the chronology thing is maybe what they're referring to. It may also be the rehearsed element. Like, is it just someone just saying what they've prepared rather than answering the actual question you've been asked? And because you prepare, tell me about yourself, because that's the most common thing, often it's phrased in a different way, like, why have you applied? Why do you think you're the best person for this job? And you need to really make sure that you're answering the question they ask and not the question that you thought they were going to ask or that you wanted them to ask. So, it's possible it refers to that as well, I guess.
Yeah, I think that's true. I think, you know, just be careful and actually listen to what that question is. I think the other thing that you can do, uh, with this kind of CV type of question is to think of it less of a chronology and more as a skills-based answer.
Mm-hmm.
So, you know, what, what, what can you do as a result of your higher-level training and your other experiences, um, that are relevant for this job, this role?
Yeah.
And that set you apart from other candidates. Um, so yeah, I mean, it is boring if people just reel off the CV stuff as a chronology, and particularly as a list. Um, then I think it's incredibly boring. Um, so I think maybe that's what this person is getting at.
Yeah.
But I also do think that there is a place for making sure that you have given a thorough representation of yourself in that first answer, because that, that might be the only chance that you get to get some of this stuff on the table. Um, so you do have to give them a bit of a recap, and don't assume that they've read it all on your application form or your CV. Um, and if they have read it, don't assume that they remember it.
Yeah.
Um, and also remember, you're only going to get scored for it in the interview if you say it in the room. So it's got to be, you know, that skills-based piece around your clinical experience, something about your research and education experience, and then, you know, your management experience, which might include service improvement, QIPs, complaints, audits, whatever it includes, and demonstrating your USPs in that way.
Yeah. And I think one of the things also with this question is that not all advice that people give you is equal about interviews and what you should do and how to answer questions. But when it's someone on the panel, I do think you do want to take it seriously because they're telling you, I'm going to be interviewing you, I'm going to be scoring you, and this is something. So I do think you need to take it seriously, but I do think it is probably just clarifying in your mind what exactly you think they were getting at here. So you can't dismiss this, but you need to go through thinking, what does it mean? And you don't want to take it to an extreme where you've said, right, well, they don't want to hear about my CV, so I'm just going to chat about something else, because I think that would be a big mistake.
Yeah, absolutely.
We're going to go on to the golden example. This is one of the golden examples that a student has given us, and today we've got a duty of candour example. What have we got, Becky? Do you want to? Run us through it.
Okay, so in my endoscopy list, a patient had a different bowel prep regime from the standard one, but due to a breakdown in communication, they hadn't received the right formulation. They had to be given an enema, which upset the child and family. I apologised, signposted them to PALS, did a day text, raised it in the department, and I tried to implement some procedures to prevent this from happening in the future. So, that's a duty of candour example. What do you think?
So, picking aside from the steps, which we can maybe come back to, but just looking at the actual example, do we think it's a good duty of candour example? So, the patient didn't receive the right bowel prep. It was an error. They had to be given an enema, which obviously was distressing for them. And your job is to do duty of candour. I think that's a good, clear example of duty of candour. You weren't the person who made the mistake or wrote up the wrong bowel prep. You're the person breaking the news to them. So yeah, I think this is a good example. In duty of candor, unlike when we say in a mistake, you don't want to use a deal breaker mistake, but in duty of candor, you could actually— it could be a very significant mistake as long as it's not your mistake.
Mm-hmm.
Because what you want, actually, the bigger the mistake or the bigger the harm, the bigger your task is to do duty of candor. So the more you're showing off your skills at duty of candor. So, I think it's fine to have a more dramatic example, but you need to have distanced yourself from it in that you don't feel it's your responsibility or your fault. Otherwise, it will become quite stressful for you, and you will spend a lot of time talking about why the mistake happened rather than the duty of candour. So, I think this is a solid example. What do you think?
I like it. Yeah, I think it's good. Also, it's really easy to explain. We can understand what happened. There's no clinical technical terms that people are going to get bogged down in. And so actually, I like it in that respect as well, because we want people to be able to tell the incident part of it quickly and easily. Everyone can understand it. And now we can move on to what the duty of candour process is. And that example allows you to do that really nicely.
So yeah, and just to go— just to Quickly overview the steps of duty of candor, which I don't think they were quite all covered in the way that the student gave this example, but you apologize to them, you explain what the consequences are. In this case, the child ended up getting an enema when they didn't necessarily need it and maybe distress. Any consequences, short, medium, or long-term consequences of that, in which there may not be in all cases. Thinking about how you're going to rectify it. So in this case, You actually probably can't because it's already a done deal, but thinking about if there was anything that needed to be done. And then one thing to do is just pause and just say what the family said back to you. Were they fuming? Were they just happy you'd apologized openly? Were they upset? What did they say? Because often I think people are so focused on getting through the step, step, step, step, that you forget there's a patient there, there's a family there. What did they actually say back? So I'd include that bit. And then you're going through all the other bits that were mentioned here, which is you tell the family there's going to be a DATIC submitted. It's going to go through the governance process. If you do wish to complain formally, here's a POWS leaflet, and you can do that. And then you can follow through some of your reflection and any changes in the department. So these are the broad steps for duty of candour. But I think, yeah, great example.
I like it, yeah. Go for it.
Cool. Okay, now we're going to look at an interview question of the week. And this question is about diversity, which I like this question. And we know that you're very likely to get a diversity question. You won't always get this one. But this week, we're going to look at— the question is, what is the value of having diversity in your leadership? Which I think is a great question. And in fact, I think sometimes we've had people being asked directly, like, we don't have a diverse leadership, or we don't have diversity on the panel. What do you think about that? Or what's the value of having it? And yeah, I think this gets to the heart of— it's one way to ask the diversity question. So, why is it important to have diversity in leadership? What sort of thoughts would you think to approach this?
I think the first thing is that probably a lot of people would get this question and think, oh my God, I don't know how to answer it.
That's horrendous.
But actually, I think you can kind of slow yourself down and just take a pause, which is one of the other things we often advise people to do, and just think this through. So, you know, what is the value of having diversity in your leadership? So clearly it's about thinking about reflecting maybe our patient population in our staff population, so that we've got patients feeling that they're adequately represented by the people that are caring for them. Similarly, are more junior staff seeing themselves represented in the leadership team and seeing that as an inspirational thing? So, I think it's important to kind of think about patients and staff when you think about that level of diversity. Is that the kind of thing that you would do with that?
Yeah, I think so. And then, if you've got experience or reflection on good leadership that you've seen or why it's been important for you personally, I think that's good. You could include— there's an opportunity to include that as well. So yeah, I think that's a good way to approach it. And diversity questions can come up in different ways. So this is definitely one to prepare for. And yeah, also staff, patient projects around diversity, but this is quite a general one. And yeah, I think it could come up. So definitely prep it beforehand.
Yeah, I think EDI questions, are generally not things that you can think of examples for on the spot.
Don't want to.
So just do, do prepare those. It's really, really worth it. And, you know, think, think about projects and, you know, things that you've done or that you consistently do where you're thinking about protected characteristics specifically and how you make sure that you are mindful of and inclusive of that in your day-to-day practice. Yep.
Okay, and then our tip and trick of the week is around the 3-point structure. We love a 3-point structure, don't we?
We love it. We do. We absolutely love it, and we're not ashamed to say it.
No, it works almost always. There's really no situation where— well, um, uh, okay, so what is the 3-point structure and why is it important? And, uh, yeah, I guess it's what— why do we Why do we say it's important and how can it help you?
So, I think there are multiple ways, and maybe I should outline 3 ways. There's 3 ways. I think, so, one, let's see if I can do this now. It anchors you, so it gives you a plan to follow and it keeps you on track when your mind goes blank. 2, it allows you to deliver a reasonable amount of breadth across the answer. And 3, it's not so many points that it prevents you from delivering adequate depth. So, that's my 3-point answer to why a 3-point answer is very important.
Lovely. I love it. And a 4th point, even though that breaches the 3-point thing, this is all getting a bit confusing, is timing. Because when you practise, if you practise, say, talking for 45 to 60 seconds about a point, any point, and you get really used to that, then you'll naturally be able to do that in your interview. So having a 3-point structure means that the timing of your answers is going to be roughly right. And although you won't have a stopwatch in front of you, you will naturally fall into reasonable timing because you're having what you said about a spread of points, encouraging a bit of depth of the points. So you're not just listing out 20 points, but you're developing 3. So all of it leads to better timing, better score. But I think the first thing about anchoring you is really important because you could—
Mm-hmm.
Anyone could act— you could be asked any question, and if you can actually just in your pause think of 3 points to say, 3 sensible points, they don't need to be the best points, 3 sensible points, and then use all of the structures that you practised, you're more likely to score points. Even if it's a question you weren't expecting or you're worried about or panicking, you're much more likely to come up with something sensible and score points than just sort of rambling or blurting out the first thing that comes to mind.
Mm-hmm.
So I think it's great when your mind goes blank. And the more you practise using the 3-point structure, the more easily you'll be able to use it when that happens, when your mind goes blank or when they ask you an unexpected question.
I think it probably makes it easier for the panel to score you as well because they know where you're going. And actually, sometimes when you're in an interview panel and somebody's kind of a bit all over the show, it makes you feel a bit kind of stressed and nervous on their behalf. And actually, you know, I find it if I'm listening to an interview answer and people are organised in the way that they present the answer.
Yeah.
It's just much more pleasant to listen to. I know where they're going to go. I think, oh, okay, they were going to talk about risk, audit, and, you know, clinical effectiveness.
Great.
So they say, in terms of risk, and then talk about that for 45 seconds. In terms of audit, and in terms of clinical effectiveness, and then I can wrap up. So actually, you've given the panel your 3 section headings, you've signposted them through the answer so they know where you're going. So I kind of think of those as chapter headings then as you go through your answer, and then just wrap up. So in summary, I've talked about risk, audit, and clinical effectiveness as my 3 pillars of clinical governance.
Yeah, it's a winner. So in summary, Using the 3-point structure anchors you, it gives you a broad spread of points, and it allows you to not use too many points so that you actually get to develop them.
Smashed it.
Okay, I think we will wrap up there and can't wait to see you next week for our next episode of the podcast.
Chat then. Looking forward to it. See you later.
