Read the 8 numbered paragraphs, then answer the questions. Part C tests the writer’s meaning and attitude as well as detail.
Original practice material written by OETify.
Larch Outpatient Centre and its feedback changes are invented. The article does not report a real study.
By the OETify editorial team.
Article: changes to patient feedback at Larch
Paragraph 1. At the fictional Larch Outpatient Centre, staff were pleased when a new feedback screen attracted more responses than paper forms. The screen asked patients to rate their visit before leaving. Most ratings were positive. The service manager initially took this as evidence that the change had made feedback more useful. A receptionist asked a different question: who was passing the screen without stopping?
Paragraph 2. The receptionist had noticed that patients arranging transport rarely paused. Some were trying to catch a booked vehicle; others were already late for a relative collecting them. The screen stood near the exit, where these patients had little time to reflect. Their absence from the responses did not show satisfaction. It showed that the service had made giving feedback compete with getting home.
Paragraph 3. A volunteer then offered to help patients use the screen. This increased participation among people unfamiliar with touchscreens. But it created another difficulty. A patient who had been worried about a staff member’s manner might hesitate to describe that concern to someone wearing the centre’s badge. Help with the device could remove a technical barrier while leaving a social one in place.
Paragraph 4. The team considered moving the screen into the waiting area. That would give patients more time, but many would then be rating a visit before seeing the clinician. The manager rejected the move. Instead, patients could take a card with a feedback telephone number and a web address. The screen remained available for those who preferred an immediate response. No single route was expected to suit everyone.
Paragraph 5. The new routes produced comments about difficulties arranging appointments, a subject rarely mentioned on the exit screen. Some staff argued that these comments belonged to the booking service and should be separated from clinic feedback. The receptionist disagreed. A patient experiences booking and attendance as connected parts of care, even when different teams own them. Separating the comments might make each team’s figures easier to explain while hiding the patient’s experience.
Paragraph 6. The manager began discussing the comments alongside observations from reception and missed-appointment records. None of these sources could explain an absence on its own. A missed visit might have several causes, and a complaint described one person’s account. Agreement between sources gave the team a reason to investigate a process; it did not establish why every patient had struggled.
Paragraph 7. Staff also needed to hear what happened after they passed on a concern. Previously, reception had forwarded comments but received little response. The manager introduced a brief monthly update stating which issues had been examined and what had changed. The update also named issues still unresolved. Its purpose was to make reporting worth continuing, even when a solution was slow.
Paragraph 8. The centre kept the screen, but stopped treating its positive ratings as a complete description of care. The writer’s concern is not that numerical feedback has no value. It is that a convenient number can become a substitute for asking who could answer and what the question allowed them to say. A quieter complaint route may reveal a problem that a busy screen conceals.
Eight questions on meaning and attitude
Reading Part C uses 2 longer articles, each with 8 four-option questions. This shorter set has 1 article. In the test, Parts B and C share 45 minutes.
Want feedback on every answer? The OETify app has full Nursing practice. Start with a free baseline.
Sources
- OET Test Handbook 2026 (OET)