Psych Vivas · Forensic psychiatry — FII / medical child abuse
Fabricated or induced illness — structured clinical viva
Fellowship viva on FII/MCA/FDIA terminology, safeguarding, assessment, perpetrator psychopathology, ethics of surveillance, and report limits.
On this page & tools
Target exams
Interpretation
Reveal interpretation
Frame. This is a possible induction presentation (apnoeas only with one caregiver). Prioritise child safety and multi-agency process over syndrome labelling. Historical MSBP is imperfect because it glamorizes a psychiatric eponym and can blur child-harm evidence with caregiver motivation; modern FII/MCA/CFI and FDIA separate those frames.[1][2][6][9]
Immediate safety. Medical observation with supervised access; notify local child-protection pathways on reasonable suspicion; assess siblings; senior team coherence; no corridor confrontation.[2][7]
Assessment. Multi-source chronology, symptom–observer matrix, clarify dual-role ethics, caregiver MSE after safety, describe behaviours first.[5]
Perpetrator psychopathology. Series show predominantly female caregivers, healthcare-related occupational themes, high personality and factitious comorbidity—not a single diagnosis. Assessment informs treatability and risk, not the fact of child harm alone.[3][4]
Differential. Genuine cardiorespiratory/neurological disease; anxious parenting; malingering by proxy; FDIA. Keep organic workup open.[2][5]
Covert video. Only lawful multi-agency authorised protocols; high bar; not junior freelance recording.[2][6]
Opinion product. Questions answered: mental state, deception/motivation analysis, comorbidity, recurrence risk for contact, treatment prospects (guarded for entrenched factitious dynamics). Limitations explicit; no invented statutes; no usurping court findings.[5][8]
Escalation questions (examiner probes)
Examiner probes typically stress-test premature labelling, false-accusation risk in complex medical children, father as perpetrator, adult FDIA victims, and whether therapy alone allows unsupervised reunification. High-yield probes include: whether a normal caregiver MSE today excludes FII or FDIA; whether improvement on separation is definitive proof; how process changes if the caregiver is the father; coexistence of real rare metabolic disease with over-anxious parenting; and whether psychotherapy can guarantee zero recurrence for unsupervised reunification.[2][3][7][8]
References
- [1]Meadow R Munchausen syndrome by proxy. The hinterland of child abuse Lancet, 1977.PMID 69945
- [2]Bass C, Glaser D Early recognition and management of fabricated or induced illness in children Lancet, 2014.PMID 24612863
- [3]Yates G, Bass C The perpetrators of medical child abuse (Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy) - A systematic review of 796 cases Child Abuse Negl, 2017.PMID 28750264
- [4]Bass C, Jones D Psychopathology of perpetrators of fabricated or induced illness in children: case series Br J Psychiatry, 2011.PMID 21804147
- [5]Sanders MJ, Bursch B Forensic assessment of illness falsification, Munchausen by proxy, and factitious disorder, NOS Child Maltreat, 2002.PMID 12020067
- [6]Stirling J, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect Beyond Munchausen syndrome by proxy: identification and treatment of child abuse in a medical setting Pediatrics, 2007.PMID 17473106
- [7]Tully J, Hopkins O, Smith A, et al. Fabricated or induced illness in children: A guide for Australian health-care practitioners J Paediatr Child Health, 2021.PMID 34310788
- [8]Sanders MJ, Bursch B Psychological Treatment of Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another/Munchausen by Proxy Abuse J Clin Psychol Med Settings, 2020.PMID 31089919
- [9]Meadow R What is, and what is not, 'Munchausen syndrome by proxy'? Arch Dis Child, 1995.PMID 7618944