ANZCA Primary common mistakes
ANZCA Primary · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When answering a structured SAQ on a pharmacology topic, the candidate writes a general essay about the drug class rather than addressing each specific sub-part of the question in order.
Under time pressure, candidates pattern-match the topic and dump pre-learned content instead of parsing what each part of the stem actually asks, and they fear leaving a part blank.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline each directive verb and sub-question in the stem, allocate a rough time and mark budget per part, and answer in the numbered order of the question with a heading per part.
The candidate describes a physiological mechanism qualitatively (for example 'increased preload raises cardiac output') without stating the direction, magnitude, or the relationship to the specific clinical scenario given.
Surface-level recall of textbook statements without practising applying them to data or scenarios, and revision that rewards recognition over explanation.
What to do instead
Practise converting each mechanism into a cause-effect chain with a stated direction and a clinical consequence, and rehearse using the provided numbers or patient details in the answer.
On an anatomy question, the candidate lists structures in a region but cannot state their relations, innervation, or the consequence of injury to a named structure.
Anatomy is often learned as isolated lists rather than as spatial and functional relationships, and candidates underestimate how often the exam asks for applied consequences.
What to do instead
Study anatomy by region using cross-sections and relations, and for every named nerve or vessel write one applied consequence of its injury or obstruction.
The candidate answers a data-interpretation or clinical-measurement question by giving a diagnosis or impression without showing the reasoning from the numbers or findings.
Candidates treat such questions as multiple-choice in prose form and jump to a conclusion, missing that marks are allocated to the interpretation steps.
What to do instead
Structure the answer as: state the finding, state its significance, state the likely cause, then state the next step; explicitly reference the values or findings given.
The candidate manages a perioperative scenario by listing a generic anaesthetic plan without addressing preoperative risk assessment, optimisation, and the specific comorbidities described in the stem.
Candidates rehearse generic plans and skip the risk-stratification and optimisation steps, which are where most marks sit in perioperative questions.
What to do instead
Use a fixed scaffold for every perioperative scenario: assess and quantify risk, optimise each comorbidity, plan intraoperative management, plan postoperative care and escalation; explicitly name the tools and targets used.
On a pain medicine question, the candidate describes drug options but omits the assessment of pain mechanism, the multidisciplinary plan, and the safety or monitoring considerations.
Pain medicine is often revised as a list of analgesics, so candidates default to pharmacology and neglect biopsychosocial assessment and safety.
What to do instead
Answer pain questions with a structure of assessment (mechanism and contributors), multimodal pharmacological plan with doses and monitoring, non-pharmacological and multidisciplinary components, and a review or escalation plan.
The candidate presents a calculation or dose without showing the working, or gives a number without units, or fails to sanity-check the result against a plausible range.
Candidates rush calculations under time pressure and assume the marker will infer their method; unit errors and order-of-magnitude slips go unnoticed without a check step.
What to do instead
Always write the formula, substitute values with units, state the final answer with units, and add a one-line plausibility check comparing it with a known reference range or expected dose.
The candidate answers a question about equipment, monitoring, or a safety-critical process by describing what the device does rather than how failure presents, how it is detected, and what the response is.
Equipment and safety topics are revised as descriptive facts rather than as failure modes and drills, so the applied management marks are lost.
What to do instead
For every device or safety process, rehearse three things: how it works, how it fails or alarms, and the immediate corrective action; write answers in that order.
The candidate leaves parts of a multi-part question unanswered or runs out of time because they over-write the first part and under-write the rest.
Poor time allocation driven by writing everything known about the first sub-question, combined with no practice under timed conditions.
What to do instead
Practise full papers under strict timing with a visible clock; cap time per part according to marks, write brief bullet answers, and deliberately move on to secure marks on every part before returning to expand.
The candidate uses ambiguous abbreviations, illegible handwriting, or unstructured prose in short-answer responses, so correct knowledge is not credited.
Candidates assume markers will interpret intent generously and do not rehearse legible, structured written communication under exam conditions.
What to do instead
Write in short numbered points with standard, defined abbreviations only, and practise handwritten timed answers that a peer can read and mark against a model structure.