Should the NHS Charge Patients Who Repeatedly Miss Appointments?
Could charging patients for missed NHS appointments reduce waiting times, or would it create further barriers to healthcare?
This is the type of ethical and healthcare policy question you might encounter in a UK medical school interview. It challenges applicants to consider how the NHS should manage limited resources while ensuring that patients receive fair and appropriate care.
For aspiring medical students, the issue goes beyond whether patients should be held accountable for missed appointments. It raises important questions about patient autonomy, health inequalities, professional ethics and the practical challenges facing the NHS.
In this guide, we explore both sides of the debate, examine possible alternatives and provide a model answer to help you prepare for your medical school interview.
Why Are Missed NHS Appointments a Problem?
When a patient misses an appointment without cancelling in advance, the allocated time may go unused. This can prevent another patient from receiving care, particularly when waiting lists are long and clinical services are under pressure.
Missed appointments can affect several areas of healthcare:
- Waiting times: Unused appointments may delay access to consultations, investigations and treatment.
- Resource allocation: Staff time and clinical facilities may be underused.
- Continuity of care: Missed follow-ups can make it harder to monitor long-term conditions and review treatment.
- Patient outcomes: Delays in assessment or treatment may allow some health problems to worsen.
Reducing missed appointments could therefore help healthcare services make better use of their available resources.
However, it is important to recognise that not every missed appointment is avoidable. Understanding why patients fail to attend is essential before deciding how the NHS should respond.
Arguments in Favour of Charging Patients
One argument for introducing charges is that patients should take reasonable responsibility for appointments they have agreed to attend.
1. Encouraging attendance
Some supporters of fines argue that a financial penalty could encourage patients to attend scheduled appointments or cancel them in advance if they can no longer make them.
This could allow healthcare providers to offer appointments to other patients and potentially reduce wasted clinical time.
However, the extent to which charges would improve attendance is uncertain and would depend on how the policy was designed and implemented.
2. Making better use of NHS resources
The NHS operates with finite staffing, facilities and funding. When an appointment goes unused, the opportunity to provide care to another patient may be lost.
Reducing avoidable non-attendance could help services use existing capacity more effectively. This is particularly relevant in services where patients face lengthy waits for consultations or treatment.
Nevertheless, charging patients would not automatically create additional appointments or resolve underlying workforce shortages. Any proposed policy would need to demonstrate that its benefits justify its administrative costs and potential consequences.
3. Promoting personal responsibility
Another argument is that patients should recognise the importance of attending appointments, particularly when their absence affects other people waiting for care.
A financial penalty could be presented as a way of encouraging patients to cancel appointments they cannot attend rather than simply failing to turn up.
However, personal responsibility must be considered alongside the circumstances that influence a person's ability to access healthcare.
Arguments Against Charging Patients
Although charging patients may appear to be a straightforward solution, it raises significant ethical and practical concerns.
1. Worsening health inequalities
Not all patients have the same ability to attend appointments.
People experiencing financial hardship may struggle with transport costs, while others may face difficulties because of disability, caring responsibilities, unstable employment or limited access to digital services.
A financial penalty could place an additional burden on people who are already disadvantaged.
Furthermore, if patients become reluctant to book appointments because they fear being charged for missing them, they may delay seeking help. This could worsen their health and potentially increase the need for more expensive treatment later.
Interview insight: A policy that appears fair because it applies to everyone may have unequal effects on different groups.
2. Failing to address the underlying causes
Repeated non-attendance does not necessarily mean that a patient is careless or unwilling to engage with healthcare.
For example, a patient might miss an appointment because their bus did not arrive, their childcare arrangements fell through or their mental health symptoms made it difficult to leave home.
Other patients may struggle to understand appointment letters or may not receive reminders because their contact details are out of date.
Charging these patients would not necessarily address the underlying problem.
A more effective response may involve identifying barriers to attendance and helping patients overcome them.
3. Undermining trust between patients and healthcare professionals
The relationship between patients and healthcare professionals relies on trust, communication and mutual respect.
Introducing financial penalties could make some patients feel that the healthcare system is treating them unfairly, particularly if they believe their circumstances have not been considered.
This may discourage some people from engaging with healthcare services or explaining why they have missed appointments.
Doctors should recognise that maintaining patient trust is important for effective communication, continuity of care and long-term health outcomes.
4. Creating additional administrative costs
Implementing a charging system would require clear rules, processes for collecting payments, arrangements for exemptions and a mechanism for appealing disputed penalties.
These processes could create additional administrative work for healthcare providers.
It would therefore be necessary to consider whether the revenue or improvements in attendance would outweigh the cost of operating the system.
What Are the Alternatives to Fining Patients?
Rather than relying primarily on financial penalties, the NHS could consider several approaches to reducing missed appointments.
Appointment reminders
Text messages, telephone calls or other appropriate reminders could help patients remember upcoming appointments.
Reminders could also explain how to cancel or rearrange an appointment, allowing unused slots to be offered to other patients.
Easier cancellations and rescheduling
Patients may be more likely to notify services if cancelling or rearranging an appointment is straightforward.
Providing accessible online systems alongside telephone options could help different groups of patients manage appointments more easily.
Better understanding of individual circumstances
Healthcare providers could examine patterns of non-attendance to identify common barriers.
For example, repeated missed appointments might indicate transport difficulties, communication problems or a need for additional support.
Understanding these patterns could help services develop more targeted interventions.
Flexible appointment systems
Where practical, services could consider alternative appointment times, remote consultations when clinically appropriate, or arrangements that better accommodate patients with particular needs.
These options would not suit every patient or every clinical situation, but greater flexibility could improve access for some groups.
Proportionate responses to repeated non-attendance
Healthcare providers could review repeated missed appointments individually, taking account of clinical risk and the patient's circumstances.
For patients requiring essential follow-up, the priority should be to assess the potential consequences of non-attendance and establish an appropriate plan for ongoing care.
Any approach should be consistent with relevant professional guidance and local policies.
The Ethical Principles Behind the Debate
This question is particularly useful for medical school interviews because it allows applicants to apply the four principles of medical ethics.
Autonomy
Patients should be involved in decisions about their healthcare and treated with respect. However, autonomy does not mean that missed appointments have no consequences for other patients or the healthcare system.
Beneficence
Healthcare professionals and services should act to benefit patients. Reducing missed appointments could improve access to care, but interventions should also support the health of patients who struggle to attend.
Non-maleficence
The NHS should consider whether a policy could cause harm. Financial penalties might discourage some patients from seeking healthcare or create additional stress for people experiencing financial hardship.
Justice
Healthcare resources should be allocated fairly. Although missed appointments can disadvantage other patients, any response should consider differences in patients' circumstances and avoid disproportionately penalising vulnerable groups.
These principles may point in different directions. The challenge is to weigh them carefully rather than assuming that one principle automatically determines the answer.
How to Answer This Question in a Medical School Interview
If you encounter this question in an MMI or panel interview, avoid jumping straight to a yes-or-no answer.
Instead, structure your response around four steps.
Step 1: Acknowledge the problem.
Explain why missed appointments matter, including their potential impact on waiting times, continuity of care and the use of limited NHS resources.
Step 2: Consider both perspectives.
Discuss how charging patients might encourage cancellations and attendance, but also consider the risk of worsening health inequalities and discouraging access to healthcare.
Step 3: Explore alternative solutions.
Suggest practical measures such as appointment reminders, easier cancellations, flexible booking systems and individual assessment of repeated non-attendance.
Step 4: Reach a balanced conclusion.
State your position clearly, explain your reasoning and acknowledge any limitations or circumstances that could change your view.
Remember that interviewers are not necessarily looking for one predetermined answer. They want to understand how you evaluate evidence, consider competing priorities and reach a reasoned conclusion.
Medical School Interview Guide: Questions and Model Answers
This is a common type of NHS ethics and healthcare policy discussion for medical school interviews. Interviewers are likely to assess your ability to consider patient autonomy, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, NHS resources, and the social determinants of health rather than simply whether you agree or disagree with charging patients.
1. Core interview questions and model answers
Q1. Should the NHS charge patients who repeatedly miss appointments?
Model answer:
I believe the NHS should be cautious about charging patients who repeatedly miss appointments. Although missed appointments waste valuable resources and prevent other patients from accessing care, introducing financial penalties could disproportionately affect vulnerable people.
For example, patients may miss appointments because of financial difficulties, unreliable transport, caring responsibilities, mental health conditions, or difficulty understanding appointment letters.
From a utilitarian perspective, reducing missed appointments could benefit the wider population by improving access to healthcare. However, from a justice perspective, charging patients who cannot afford to pay could worsen health inequalities.
I would therefore prioritise interventions such as appointment reminders, easy cancellation systems, and flexible appointment scheduling. For persistent non-attendance, I would first investigate the underlying reasons before considering any proportionate response.
Ultimately, the aim should be to reduce missed appointments without compromising equitable access to healthcare.
Q2. Why are missed appointments a problem for the NHS?
Model answer:
Missed appointments create several challenges for the NHS.
- Wasted resources: Clinicians, rooms, equipment, and administrative time may go unused.
- Longer waiting lists: Another patient could potentially have used the appointment.
- Delayed treatment: Patients who repeatedly miss appointments may experience worsening health conditions.
- Reduced efficiency: Staff must spend additional time contacting patients and rearranging appointments.
However, it is important to recognise that not every missed appointment is avoidable. Understanding the causes of non-attendance is essential before deciding how to address it.
Q3. What ethical principles are relevant to this debate?
Model answer:
Four principles of medical ethics are particularly relevant.
Beneficence
Doctors and healthcare services should act in patients' best interests. Reducing missed appointments could help patients receive timely treatment.
Non-maleficence
Charging patients could cause harm if financial penalties discourage them from seeking necessary medical care.
Justice
Healthcare resources should be distributed fairly. However, identical penalties may disadvantage patients experiencing poverty, disability, or other barriers to attendance.
Autonomy
Patients have a responsibility to make informed decisions about their healthcare, including communicating when they cannot attend. However, autonomy does not mean that every missed appointment is a deliberate choice.
A strong answer recognises that these principles may conflict and explains how you would balance them.
Q4. What are the arguments in favour of charging patients?
Model answer:
There are several arguments in favour of introducing charges for repeated non-attendance.
First, financial penalties might encourage patients to attend appointments or cancel them in advance. Second, they could help reduce wasted clinical capacity and allow other patients to be seen sooner. Third, some may argue that patients should take reasonable responsibility for using a publicly funded service.
However, these arguments depend on whether charges actually reduce non-attendance. They could also create administrative costs, discourage people from seeking care, and unfairly penalise patients with genuine barriers to attendance.
Therefore, I would want evidence that charges are effective and proportionate before supporting their introduction.
Q5. What are the arguments against charging patients?
Model answer:
The strongest argument against charging is that the NHS is based on access to healthcare according to clinical need rather than ability to pay.
Financial penalties could disproportionately affect low-income patients, people with disabilities, those experiencing homelessness, and patients with mental health or cognitive difficulties.
There is also a risk that patients might avoid future appointments because they fear additional costs. This could lead to delayed diagnoses, poorer health outcomes, and potentially greater costs to the NHS in the long term.
Furthermore, missed appointments may reflect shortcomings in the healthcare system, such as inconvenient appointment times, long waiting periods, or ineffective communication.
For these reasons, I would favour preventative measures and individual assessment over automatic financial penalties.
Q6. Would charging patients conflict with the principle of a free NHS?
Model answer:
Potentially, yes. The NHS Constitution for England establishes that access to NHS services is based on clinical need, not an individual's ability to pay, and that access to services should generally be free except where charges are expressly provided for by legislation.
Introducing a penalty for a missed appointment would therefore raise important policy and legal questions. It should not be assumed that an individual NHS trust could simply introduce any charge it wished.
Ethically, there is also a distinction between charging someone for healthcare and imposing a penalty for repeatedly failing to attend a scheduled appointment. However, even a penalty could create a financial barrier to future care.
I would argue that any proposal would need clear legal authority, strong evidence of effectiveness, and safeguards to protect vulnerable patients.
Interview tip: Avoid making an absolute legal claim without checking the relevant rules. NHS arrangements can differ across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Q7. Is it fair for patients to waste NHS resources without consequences?
Model answer:
I think patients should be encouraged to take responsibility for attending appointments or notifying the service if they cannot attend. Other patients may be waiting for treatment, so repeated unexplained non-attendance can have consequences beyond the individual.
However, fairness must be considered in both directions. It is unfair for one patient to repeatedly miss appointments without communication, but it is also unfair to penalise someone who cannot attend because their circumstances make attendance difficult.
I would distinguish between deliberate, repeated non-attendance despite reasonable support and missed appointments caused by circumstances outside a patient's control.
A fair system should promote accountability while recognising that patients have different levels of control over their circumstances.
2. Scenario-based interview questions
Q8. A patient has missed five appointments without explanation. What would you do?
Model answer:
I would avoid immediately assuming that the patient was irresponsible or did not value their health.
First, I would review the available information and check whether the patient had been contacted appropriately. I would then arrange for the relevant healthcare team to contact them, where appropriate, to explore possible barriers to attendance.
These might include transport difficulties, language barriers, mental health problems, memory difficulties, caring responsibilities, or concerns about their diagnosis.
If the patient continued to miss appointments, the team could consider reasonable adjustments, alternative appointment methods, or a different follow-up plan based on clinical need.
If there were concerns about a serious condition or a risk of harm, I would ensure that appropriate clinical escalation and follow-up arrangements were considered.
My approach would be supportive rather than punitive, while recognising the importance of responsible use of NHS resources.
Q9. What if a wealthy patient repeatedly misses appointments but a low-income patient misses one appointment because they cannot afford transport?
Model answer:
This scenario illustrates the difference between equality and equity.
Treating everyone identically might mean imposing the same penalty on both patients. However, an equitable approach would consider their circumstances and the reasons for non-attendance.
The wealthy patient may have fewer practical barriers, although I would still establish why they had missed appointments rather than assuming they were acting irresponsibly. The low-income patient may need assistance with transport or access to a more convenient service.
The aim should not be to judge patients based on wealth, but to understand the barriers they face and respond proportionately.
This approach recognises personal responsibility without ignoring social inequalities.
Q10. What if a patient misses an appointment because they have anxiety or depression?
Model answer:
I would consider whether their mental health condition contributed to their non-attendance. Anxiety, depression, and other conditions can make attending appointments or communicating with healthcare professionals particularly difficult.
Charging such a patient could worsen their distress and discourage them from seeking further help.
I would encourage the healthcare team to explore appropriate support, such as reminder calls, flexible appointments, remote consultations where clinically suitable, or assistance from a relevant support service.
I would not automatically assume that mental illness explains every missed appointment, but I would make sure it was considered fairly.
This demonstrates compassion while maintaining the importance of appropriate follow-up.
Q11. What if a patient misses an appointment for a potentially life-threatening condition?
Model answer:
In this situation, patient safety would be my priority.
I would consider the seriousness of the condition, the potential consequences of delayed treatment, and the urgency of the appointment. The healthcare team should follow appropriate procedures to contact the patient, communicate the risks of non-attendance, and arrange further assessment where necessary.
I would not allow a financial penalty to delay clinically necessary follow-up.
The principle of non-maleficence is particularly important here because punitive measures could increase the risk of harm. Any response should be proportionate to the clinical risk and the patient's circumstances.
Q12. What if a patient deliberately refuses to attend appointments despite understanding the consequences?
Model answer:
If the patient has capacity to make the relevant decision, has received appropriate information, and understands the risks, their autonomy should generally be respected.
However, I would want to establish whether their decision was informed and voluntary, and whether there were barriers or concerns that could be addressed.
The healthcare team should explain the potential consequences, offer reasonable support, and document relevant discussions in accordance with local procedures.
Repeated non-attendance may require a review of the most appropriate way to deliver care. Nevertheless, refusing or missing an appointment should not automatically result in a financial penalty or denial of necessary care.
3. Alternatives to charging patients
Q13. What alternatives could the NHS introduce to reduce missed appointments?
Model answer:
I would prioritise practical interventions that prevent missed appointments before introducing financial penalties.
1. Text and telephone reminders
Remind patients of the date, time, location, and cancellation options, while considering accessibility and communication preferences.
2. Easy cancellation and rescheduling
Allow patients to cancel or rearrange appointments quickly so that unused slots can be offered to others.
3. Flexible appointment options
Consider suitable evening appointments, remote consultations, and alternative appointment times.
4. Identify barriers to attendance
Explore transport, disability access, language, caring responsibilities, and difficulties understanding appointment information.
5. Better appointment management
Use waiting lists and appropriate short-notice booking systems to help fill cancelled or unused slots.
I would evaluate these interventions by measuring attendance rates, patient experience, waiting times, costs, and their impact on health inequalities.
Q14. Would text-message reminders solve the problem?
Model answer:
Text-message reminders could help, particularly when patients forget appointments or misunderstand the arrangements. They are relatively straightforward to implement and can include instructions for cancellation or rescheduling.
However, reminders would not address every cause of non-attendance. Some patients may lack reliable phone access, have limited digital literacy, require accessible communication, or face transport and caring difficulties.
Therefore, I would use reminders as one component of a wider strategy rather than treating them as a complete solution.
Q15. Should patients who repeatedly miss appointments be moved to the bottom of the waiting list?
Model answer:
I would be cautious about this approach because waiting-list decisions should primarily reflect clinical need, urgency, and the applicable clinical pathway.
Automatically moving a patient to the bottom of a waiting list could be particularly harmful if they have a serious or progressive condition.
However, repeated non-attendance may require the healthcare team to review the patient's circumstances, confirm whether they still want the appointment, and consider how best to arrange follow-up.
Any decision should follow local policy and clinical guidance, with appropriate safeguards against avoidable harm.
4. More challenging questions interviewers may ask
Q16. If charging patients saves money, why should the NHS not do it?
Model answer:
Saving money is important because NHS resources are limited, but a policy should be assessed by its overall impact rather than its apparent short-term financial benefits.
Charging patients might reduce non-attendance in some circumstances, but it could also create administrative costs, discourage people from attending future appointments, and worsen health inequalities.
I would want evidence comparing the cost of implementing charges with the benefits achieved. I would also consider whether the same resources could be used more effectively to improve reminders, cancellation systems, or appointment availability.
Efficiency matters, but it should not come at the expense of equitable access or patient safety.
Q17. Could charging patients make them more responsible for their healthcare?
Model answer:
It could encourage some patients to take appointments more seriously, but I would not assume that financial penalties are the most effective way to promote responsibility.
Patients can be encouraged to take ownership of their healthcare through clear communication, shared decision-making, and straightforward ways to cancel or rearrange appointments.
Furthermore, patients who repeatedly miss appointments may already be facing difficulties that a penalty would not resolve.
I would support proportionate accountability, but it should be combined with an understanding of individual circumstances.
Q18. How would you evaluate whether a policy to reduce missed appointments was successful?
Model answer:
I would use both quantitative and qualitative evidence.
Quantitative measures would include the rate of missed appointments, waiting times, the number of appointments successfully reallocated, implementation costs, and the number of patients who subsequently disengage from care.
Qualitative evidence could include patient feedback, staff experiences, and information about why appointments were missed.
I would also examine whether the intervention had different effects on groups who may face additional barriers to healthcare.
A policy should not be considered successful simply because fewer patients miss appointments. It should also improve access, maintain patient safety, and avoid widening health inequalities.
Q19. What if the public argues that patients are abusing a free service?
Model answer:
I would acknowledge the frustration of patients who face long waiting times while appointments go unused. Responsible use of NHS resources is important, and patients should be encouraged to cancel appointments they cannot attend.
However, it would be unfair to assume that every missed appointment represents deliberate misuse. Some patients face genuine difficulties, while others may not fully understand the appointment arrangements.
I would explain that a well-designed system can promote responsibility while remaining compassionate. Clear reminders, easy cancellation, and appropriate follow-up could address many problems without creating additional barriers to care.
Q20. As a future doctor, what would your personal responsibility be in reducing missed appointments?
Model answer:
As a future doctor, I would recognise that missed appointments affect both individual patients and the wider healthcare system.
I would communicate clearly about the importance of follow-up, check that patients understand their care plans, and encourage them to contact the service if they cannot attend.
I would also avoid making assumptions about patients' motivations and remain alert to barriers such as disability, language, mental health, and social circumstances.
If I noticed repeated non-attendance, I would follow local procedures and discuss appropriate next steps with the wider healthcare team.
My responsibility would be to promote patient safety, use resources responsibly, and treat patients with dignity and respect.
5. A high-scoring framework for answering this debate
Use the BALANCE framework to structure your answer in an MMI or panel interview.
B
Benefits
Explain how reducing missed appointments could save resources and improve access for other patients.
A
Autonomy and accountability
Recognise patients' responsibilities while respecting informed decisions and individual circumstances.
L
Limitations
Discuss the risk of penalties causing financial hardship or discouraging patients from seeking care.
A
Alternatives
Suggest reminders, accessible booking systems, flexible appointments, and support for vulnerable patients.
N
Non-maleficence and justice
Consider patient safety and whether a policy would disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups.
C
Consider evidence
Ask whether charges would genuinely work, what they would cost, and whether alternatives might work better.
E
End with a balanced conclusion
State your position clearly, acknowledge uncertainty, and explain what safeguards you would require.
6. Example of a polished two-minute MMI answer
Question: Should the NHS charge patients who repeatedly miss appointments?
I believe the NHS should prioritise preventing missed appointments rather than introducing automatic financial penalties, although repeated non-attendance is a genuine concern.
On one hand, missed appointments waste valuable NHS resources, increase waiting times, and may prevent other patients from receiving timely care. From a utilitarian perspective, reducing non-attendance could improve the efficiency of the healthcare system and benefit a larger number of patients. It is also reasonable to expect patients to attend appointments or notify the service when they cannot do so.
On the other hand, we must consider the ethical principles of justice and non-maleficence. Patients may miss appointments because of poverty, transport difficulties, disability, mental health problems, or caring responsibilities. Charging these individuals could worsen health inequalities and discourage them from accessing healthcare in the future.
I would therefore favour a supportive, evidence-based approach. This could include text reminders, easy cancellation and rescheduling, flexible appointment options, and an individual assessment of repeated non-attendance. Where a patient repeatedly misses appointments, the healthcare team should try to understand the reasons before deciding on an appropriate response.
I would also want to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of these measures, while monitoring their impact on vulnerable groups and patient safety.
Overall, I would not support blanket charges for missed appointments. I believe the NHS should promote personal responsibility while ensuring that access to healthcare remains fair and based on clinical need. Any proposed penalty would require clear legal authority, convincing evidence of benefit, and robust safeguards against harm.
7. Key points to remember before your interview
- Avoid extreme answers. Do not claim that patients should never be held accountable or that everyone who misses an appointment is irresponsible.
- Balance efficiency with equity. Saving resources matters, but so does ensuring that disadvantaged patients are not unfairly penalised.
- Apply ethical principles. Beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and autonomy help structure your reasoning.
- Consider the wider system. Missed appointments can reflect problems with appointment booking, communication, accessibility, and service design.
- Use evidence. Do not assume that financial penalties will reduce non-attendance without considering their effectiveness and unintended consequences.
- Reach a clear conclusion. A balanced answer should still make your position clear.
Key Takeaways for Medical School Applicants
When preparing for questions about NHS policy, remember these five principles:
- Consider both sides. Demonstrate that you can understand competing arguments rather than relying on a one-sided opinion.
- Apply ethical principles. Autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice can help you structure your reasoning.
- Consider vulnerable patients. Explain how a proposed policy might affect people with different needs and circumstances.
- Suggest practical solutions. Go beyond identifying a problem and consider realistic ways to address it.
- Reach a reasoned conclusion. Make your position clear while acknowledging uncertainty and potential unintended consequences.
You do not need to know every detail of NHS policy to answer this question well. What matters is your ability to reason logically, communicate clearly and demonstrate an appreciation of the challenges involved in delivering fair, effective healthcare.
Prepare for Your Medical School Interview with Cambridge Clinical
Medical school interviews assess more than your knowledge of current affairs. They also explore your communication skills, ethical reasoning, empathy and ability to approach unfamiliar situations thoughtfully.
Practising questions like this can help you develop a structured approach that you can apply across a wide range of MMI stations and panel interview discussions.
The strongest overall position is that repeated missed appointments should be addressed, but automatic charges are unlikely to be the fairest first-line solution. The NHS should focus on understanding why patients do not attend, making appointments easier to manage, and protecting access to clinically necessary care.
Explore Cambridge Clinical's medical school interview preparation resources to develop your confidence, strengthen your approach to ethical questions and prepare for the challenges of your upcoming interview.
The aim is not to memorise perfect answers. It is to develop the skills to think clearly, consider different perspectives and explain your reasoning with confidence.
Useful Links:
1. NHS England — Did Not Attends (DNAs)
https://www.england.nhs.uk/outpatient-transformation-programme/did-not-attends-dnas/
2. NHS Constitution for England
3. General Medical Council — Good medical practice
https://www.gmc-uk.org/professional-standards/the-professional-standards/good-medical-practice
4. GMC — Patients, partnership and communication
5. NICE — Shared decision making (NG197)
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng197
6. NICE — Patient experience in adult NHS services (QS15)
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs15
7. NHS Constitution — Handbook
Start with resources 1–3. They are the most directly useful for discussing missed appointments, NHS principles, and professional ethics in an MMI interview.