HSRT Exam — Questions and Answers

Question 1: A hospital unit has seen a 25% increase in patient falls over the last quarter. The nursing manager reviews the incident reports and notes that 80% of the falls occurred between 10 PM and 6 AM, and 70% of those who fell were patients prescribed new sleep aid medications. Which of the following conclusions is best supported by this data?

All sleep aid medications are unsafe for elderly patients.
The night shift nursing staff is negligent in their duties.
The hospital's fall prevention protocol is completely ineffective.
There is a strong correlation between the prescription of new sleep aids and the increased rate of falls on the night shift. (Correct answer)

Correct answer: There is a strong correlation between the prescription of new sleep aids and the increased rate of falls on the night shift.

This question requires analyzing the provided data to draw a warranted conclusion. The data shows a strong temporal relationship (night shift) and a strong association with a specific factor (new sleep aids). Therefore, concluding there is a correlation is the most logical inference. The other options are unsupported assumptions. Attributing the falls to staff negligence (A) is an assumption without evidence. Claiming all sleep aids are unsafe (B) is an overgeneralization. Stating the entire protocol is ineffective (D) is too broad a conclusion based on limited data.

Question 2: A pharmaceutical sales representative presents a graph showing that patients on their drug lived on average 2.1 months longer. The survival benefit was statistically significant (p=0.001). Which credibility question is MOST important?

Is 2.1 months of additional survival clinically meaningful given the drug's side effects and cost? (Correct answer)
Did the sales representative verify the statistics independently?
Is p=0.001 a sufficiently small p-value to be trusted?
Should survival data be presented as a graph rather than a table?

Correct answer: Is 2.1 months of additional survival clinically meaningful given the drug's side effects and cost?

Statistical significance does not equal clinical significance. A 2.1-month benefit must be weighed against quality of life, side effects, and cost to assess real-world credibility.

Question 3: A medical student deduces: 'All patients with Cushing's syndrome have elevated cortisol. This patient has elevated cortisol. Therefore, this patient has Cushing's syndrome.' Evaluate this deductive argument.

Sound — the premises are true and the form is valid
Invalid — affirming the consequent; elevated cortisol has multiple causes beyond Cushing's syndrome (Correct answer)
Inductively strong — this is the most probable diagnosis given elevated cortisol
Valid — the logical form is correct and the conclusion follows necessarily

Correct answer: Invalid — affirming the consequent; elevated cortisol has multiple causes beyond Cushing's syndrome

The form 'If P then Q; Q; therefore P' is affirming the consequent — an invalid deductive form. Elevated cortisol occurs in stress, obesity, depression, and other conditions.

Question 4: A researcher presents a pie chart with 5 slices that together visually appear to total more than 100%. Which critical interpretation step is required?

Ask whether the data was collected by a reliable institution before questioning the visual
Accept the chart because researchers do not typically include errors in published visuals
Check whether the percentages have been verified to sum to 100%; visual distortion in pie charts can create the impression of overrepresentation (Correct answer)
Convert the pie chart to a bar chart to get accurate values

Correct answer: Check whether the percentages have been verified to sum to 100%; visual distortion in pie charts can create the impression of overrepresentation

Pie charts are prone to visual distortion from 3D effects and irregular slices. Always verify that the stated percentages actually sum to 100%.

Question 5: A Kaplan-Meier survival curve shows that the two treatment arms (A and B) diverge significantly at 6 months but converge by 24 months. Which interpretation is MOST analytically sound?

Treatment A provided a short-term survival advantage that was not sustained at 24 months, suggesting the benefit diminishes over time (Correct answer)
The survival curves are uninterpretable because they crossed
Treatment A is superior because the curves diverged at 6 months
The convergence at 24 months proves both treatments are equally effective

Correct answer: Treatment A provided a short-term survival advantage that was not sustained at 24 months, suggesting the benefit diminishes over time

Divergence at 6 months with convergence at 24 months indicates a transient early advantage for one treatment that was not maintained long-term.

Question 6: A clinical lab reports that a test for Disease X has a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 60%. A patient tests positive. Which inference about the test result is MOST accurate?

The patient almost certainly has Disease X because the sensitivity is 95%
A positive result has limited diagnostic value due to the low specificity, meaning many positives are false positives (Correct answer)
The positive result means the patient definitely has Disease X
The test result is highly reliable because sensitivity exceeds specificity

Correct answer: A positive result has limited diagnostic value due to the low specificity, meaning many positives are false positives

Positive predictive value (PPV) is determined by specificity and disease prevalence. Low specificity means a high false-positive rate, limiting the value of a positive result.

Question 7: Which of the following BEST illustrates the relationship between inductive and deductive reasoning in clinical practice?

Induction generates hypotheses and general rules from clinical data; deduction applies those rules to specific patient cases (Correct answer)
Deductive reasoning generates guidelines; inductive reasoning tests whether they apply to individual patients
Induction is used for diagnosis while deduction is used for prognosis
Both forms of reasoning produce equally certain conclusions in clinical settings

Correct answer: Induction generates hypotheses and general rules from clinical data; deduction applies those rules to specific patient cases

In clinical practice, research inductively generates rules and guidelines; clinicians then deductively apply those rules to specific patients.

Question 8: During a clinical debate, a colleague says: 'You think we should reduce antibiotic prescribing, but you also took antibiotics last year. You're a hypocrite.' This is an example of:

Appeal to hypocrisy — a valid refutation when the speaker violates their own standards
Ad hominem (tu quoque) — attacking the person's alleged inconsistency rather than addressing the argument (Correct answer)
False analogy — comparing personal antibiotic use to prescribing policy
Straw man — misrepresenting the argument for reduced prescribing

Correct answer: Ad hominem (tu quoque) — attacking the person's alleged inconsistency rather than addressing the argument

Tu quoque ('you too') attacks the speaker's personal behavior rather than addressing the substance of the argument, which is a form of ad hominem.

Question 9: A pharmacist notices that three separate patients developed QT prolongation within 48 hours of starting the same new antiarrhythmic medication. What is the MOST logically warranted inference at this stage?

There is a plausible causal signal between the medication and QT prolongation that warrants pharmacovigilance reporting and increased monitoring (Correct answer)
The medication definitively causes QT prolongation in all patients
The medication should be immediately recalled without further investigation
The three cases are coincidental since QT prolongation is common in cardiac patients

Correct answer: There is a plausible causal signal between the medication and QT prolongation that warrants pharmacovigilance reporting and increased monitoring

Three clustered cases within 48 hours of a new drug constitute a pharmacovigilance signal warranting reporting and monitoring, but not yet a definitive causal conclusion.

Question 10: A hospital pharmacist is preparing a 500 mL intravenous bag of a 20% dextrose solution. How many grams of dextrose must be added to the sterile water?

20 g
250 g
40 g
100 g (Correct answer)

Correct answer: 100 g

A 20% weight/volume (w/v) solution means there are 20 grams of solute for every 100 mL of solution. To find out how many grams are needed for 500 mL, you can set up a proportion: (20 g / 100 mL) = (X g / 500 mL). Solving for X gives: X = (20 g * 500 mL) / 100 mL = 100 g.

Question 11: A patient with chronic back pain tells their physician, "My neighbor used a specific brand of herbal supplement and his pain disappeared within a week. I'm going to stop my prescribed medication and try that instead." Which of the following is the most critical initial question the physician should ask to evaluate the neighbor's claim?

"What is the name of the website where I can read testimonials about this supplement?"
"Is your neighbor generally a trustworthy person?"
"Did your neighbor change anything else, like his activity level or diet, around the same time?" (Correct answer)
"How expensive is the herbal supplement?"

Correct answer: "Did your neighbor change anything else, like his activity level or diet, around the same time?"

This question seeks to identify potential confounding variables. The neighbor's improvement may have been caused by other factors (e.g., starting a new exercise, natural recovery, placebo effect) rather than the supplement itself. Before attributing the outcome to the supplement, it is critical to explore alternative explanations. The other questions are less relevant to the direct causal claim.

Question 12: A hospital administrator presents a line graph showing the rate of patient falls per 1,000 patient-days for the last four years: Year 1: 3.5, Year 2: 3.1, Year 3: 3.3, Year 4: 2.9. The administrator claims, "Our fall prevention program, implemented at the start of Year 2, has led to a consistent and significant decrease in patient falls." Which of the following is the most critical evaluation of this claim based on the graph?

The claim is strong because any decrease, no matter how small, proves the program's success.
The claim is strong because the rate in Year 4 is lower than the rate in Year 1.
The claim is invalid because the graph does not show data from before the program started.
The claim is weak because the rate increased in Year 3, showing an inconsistent trend. (Correct answer)

Correct answer: The claim is weak because the rate increased in Year 3, showing an inconsistent trend.

The administrator's claim of a 'consistent' decrease is not supported by the data. While the rate did drop from Year 1 to Year 2, it then increased from Year 2 to Year 3 (3.1 to 3.3). This fluctuation contradicts the idea of a consistent downward trend, making the claim an overstatement of the program's impact.

Question 13: A dietitian is analyzing a patient's 24-hour dietary recall and identifies several inconsistencies. The most analytically rigorous next step is:

Accept the recall as accurate since the patient completed it voluntarily
Average the recall data with the hospital meal records and use that as the basis for intervention
Discard the recall and use population-average intake values instead
Cross-reference the recall with the patient's reported weight changes and biochemical markers to triangulate accuracy (Correct answer)

Correct answer: Cross-reference the recall with the patient's reported weight changes and biochemical markers to triangulate accuracy

Triangulating multiple data sources — recall, weight history, labs — is the most analytically rigorous approach to assessing dietary intake.

Question 14: A patient with a known severe allergy to penicillin is admitted to the hospital. The physician verbally orders an antibiotic for a new infection. The nurse cannot clearly understand the name of the antibiotic due to a poor phone connection. Which of the following actions demonstrates the strongest clinical reasoning and adherence to safety protocols?

Asking a colleague what they think the physician said.
Administering a broad-spectrum antibiotic that is not penicillin, assuming it will be effective.
Checking the patient's chart for previous antibiotic prescriptions and choosing one of those.
Calling the physician back to clarify the order before administering any medication. (Correct answer)

Correct answer: Calling the physician back to clarify the order before administering any medication.

This scenario tests the ability to analyze a situation with high potential for harm and identify the safest, most logical course of action. In situations of uncertainty, especially involving medication orders and known severe allergies, the primary rule is to seek clarification from the prescriber. This prevents potential medication errors. The other options introduce unnecessary risk. Administering a non-ordered drug (A) is outside the scope of practice. Relying on a colleague's guess (B) is unsafe. Administering an old prescription (D) is inappropriate as the current infection may require a different agent.

Question 15: The medical suffix '-algia' means:

Tumor or mass
Surgical repair
Pain (Correct answer)
Inflammation

Correct answer: Pain

-Algia derives from Greek 'algos' (pain). Examples: myalgia (muscle pain), neuralgia (nerve pain), arthralgia (joint pain).

Question 16: A clinical epidemiologist finds that a new study contradicts an existing inductive generalization about statin therapy. The MOST appropriate response to this inductive challenge is:

Accept the new study because newer evidence always supersedes older evidence
Evaluate the new study's methodological quality; if strong, update the generalization and review whether the guideline requires revision (Correct answer)
Suspend all statin recommendations until the contradiction is resolved
Dismiss the new study because the existing evidence base is well-established

Correct answer: Evaluate the new study's methodological quality; if strong, update the generalization and review whether the guideline requires revision

Inductive generalizations are provisional and must be updated when new high-quality evidence challenges them, following a systematic quality evaluation.

Question 17: An epidemiologist observes that over 10 years, counties that implemented needle exchange programs saw a 35% average reduction in HIV transmission among people who inject drugs. She infers that needle exchange programs reduce HIV transmission. This is:

Hypothetical-deductive reasoning — testing a prior hypothesis with observational data
Inductive reasoning — generalizing from observed population-level data across multiple counties to a broader causal inference (Correct answer)
Deductive reasoning — applying a known principle about harm reduction to a specific dataset
Abductive reasoning — selecting the best explanation for the HIV reduction

Correct answer: Inductive reasoning — generalizing from observed population-level data across multiple counties to a broader causal inference

Moving from specific observed data (10 years, multiple counties, 35% reduction) to a general causal inference is inductive reasoning.

Question 18: The prefix 'brady-' in medical terminology means:

Fast
Slow (Correct answer)
Abnormal
Absent

Correct answer: Slow

Brady- comes from Greek 'bradys' meaning slow. Bradycardia = slow heart rate; bradypnea = slow breathing.

Question 19: A nursing professor tells students: 'I've been practicing for 30 years and I've never seen a patient harmed by that medication.' This claim should be assessed with which critical lens?

Personal clinical experience, however extensive, is not a substitute for systematic evidence and can be subject to survivorship bias (Correct answer)
30 years of experience qualifies as expert opinion, which is the highest level of evidence
Clinical experience is only credible when published in peer-reviewed journals
The professor's claim should be immediately discredited because it is anecdotal

Correct answer: Personal clinical experience, however extensive, is not a substitute for systematic evidence and can be subject to survivorship bias

Even extensive personal experience is subject to survivorship bias, recall bias, and is inferior to controlled systematic studies when assessing drug safety.

Question 20: A clinical trial is conducted to compare a new antihypertensive drug ('NewDrug') against a placebo. The results show that the group taking NewDrug had an average systolic blood pressure reduction of 15 mmHg, while the placebo group had a reduction of 2 mmHg. The p-value for this difference was < 0.01. What is the most appropriate inference from these findings?

The study proves that NewDrug has no side effects.
NewDrug is an effective medication for lowering systolic blood pressure. (Correct answer)
The observed difference in blood pressure reduction between the two groups is likely due to random chance.
All patients who take NewDrug will experience exactly a 15 mmHg drop in systolic blood pressure.

Correct answer: NewDrug is an effective medication for lowering systolic blood pressure.

This question requires making a valid inference based on statistical results from a clinical trial. A p-value of < 0.01 indicates that the observed difference between the NewDrug and placebo groups is statistically significant, meaning it is very unlikely to have occurred by chance. Therefore, the most logical inference is that the drug is effective. Option A is directly contradicted by the low p-value. Option C is an invalid inference as the provided data is about efficacy, not safety or side effects. Option D is an overgeneralization; the 15 mmHg is an average, and individual results will vary.

Question 21: What is neuropathy?

Brain disorder
Leg disorder
Hand disorder
Nerve disorder (Correct answer)

Correct answer: Nerve disorder

Neuropathy is a nerve disorder. It involves damage or dysfunction of the nerves, which can lead to various symptoms such as pain, tingling, numbness, or weakness. Neuropathy can result from a variety of causes, including diabetes, infections, autoimmune diseases, and exposure to certain medications or toxins. It is important to identify the underlying cause of neuropathy for proper diagnosis and management. The term does not specifically refer to disorders of the legs, hands, or brain, although neuropathy can affect nerves throughout the body.

Question 22: A patient's chart notes the following: 'Patient reports increased fatigue and shortness of breath over the past month. A recent blood test shows significantly lower-than-normal red blood cell count.' Based only on this information, what can be logically inferred?

The patient requires an immediate blood transfusion.
The patient's symptoms are a direct result of the low red blood cell count. (Correct answer)
The patient has a poor diet.
The patient is suffering from a severe cardiac condition.

Correct answer: The patient's symptoms are a direct result of the low red blood cell count.

The most direct inference is that the physiological symptoms (fatigue, shortness of breath) are linked to the clinical finding (low red blood cells), as red blood cells are responsible for oxygen transport. While a poor diet or a cardiac condition could be ultimate causes, we cannot infer them directly from only the information given. An immediate transfusion is a treatment decision and not a direct inference from the presented data alone.

Question 23: A respiratory therapist applies the deductive rule: 'Patients with FEV1/FVC < 0.70 have obstructive lung disease.' Patient L has an FEV1/FVC of 0.65. She concludes Patient L has obstructive lung disease. This reasoning is:

Invalid — spirometry results require physician interpretation before conclusions can be drawn
Inductively strong — obstruction is probable but not certain below this threshold
Sound but not valid — the conclusion is clinically correct despite logical flaws
Deductively valid — the conclusion follows necessarily from the diagnostic threshold applied to the specific measurement (Correct answer)

Correct answer: Deductively valid — the conclusion follows necessarily from the diagnostic threshold applied to the specific measurement

Applying a diagnostic threshold (universal rule) to a specific measurement to reach a diagnostic conclusion is a valid deductive argument.

Question 24: A nurse observes that three separate patients who have developed a post-operative infection all had their surgeries in the same operating room. The nurse begins to suspect that the operating room may be the source of the infection. Which type of reasoning is the nurse primarily using?

Inductive Reasoning (Correct answer)
Analogical Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning
Abductive Reasoning

Correct answer: Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning involves making a generalization based on specific observations. The nurse observed a pattern (three patients with infections from the same OR) and formed a general hypothesis that the OR is the source.

Question 25: What is myalgia?

Heart pain
Muscle pain (Correct answer)
Heart weakness
Muscle weakness

Correct answer: Muscle pain

The term "myalgia" refers to muscle pain, which is the correct answer given in the options. It is a common symptom that can be caused by various factors such as muscle strain, overuse, or injury. Myalgia can also be a symptom of certain medical conditions like viral infections or autoimmune disorders. Therefore, muscle pain is the appropriate choice among the given options as it accurately describes the meaning of myalgia.

Question 26: A health blogger claims that 'Vitamin C megadoses cure cancer, and thousands of patients have been healed.' Which credibility criterion is MOST undermined by this statement?

Verifiability — the claim lacks citations, study references, or reproducible evidence (Correct answer)
Objectivity — the blogger has a financial interest in supplements
Consistency — the claim contradicts itself
Expertise — the blogger may not have medical credentials

Correct answer: Verifiability — the claim lacks citations, study references, or reproducible evidence

A credible claim must be verifiable through reproducible, referenced evidence. 'Thousands healed' without citations is unverifiable anecdote.

Question 27: Two systematic reviews report conflicting conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic low back pain. Which approach BEST assesses the relative credibility of each review?

Compare their methodological quality: study selection criteria, risk of bias assessment tools, and heterogeneity management (Correct answer)
Accept the review that included more total studies regardless of their quality
Accept the most recently published review as more credible because newer evidence supersedes older evidence
Defer to the review authored by researchers affiliated with a university hospital

Correct answer: Compare their methodological quality: study selection criteria, risk of bias assessment tools, and heterogeneity management

Methodological quality — not recency, quantity, or institutional prestige — is the primary determinant of a systematic review's credibility.

Question 28: A pharmaceutical company publishes a study showing its new antibiotic is 40% more effective than the standard of care. The study was funded exclusively by the company. Which credibility concern is MOST salient?

Statistical power — the 40% difference may not be clinically meaningful
Conflict of interest — industry-funded studies have a documented tendency toward favorable outcomes (Correct answer)
Peer review — the journal may not have used double-blind review
Sample size — the study may not have enrolled enough patients

Correct answer: Conflict of interest — industry-funded studies have a documented tendency toward favorable outcomes

Industry funding is a well-documented source of bias that inflates positive findings. This represents a conflict of interest that compromises credibility.

Question 29: A clinical researcher finds that in a randomized controlled trial, the intervention group had a 25% reduction in 30-day readmissions (p=0.03, 95% CI: 5%–45%). Which inference is MOST defensible?

The intervention likely reduces readmissions, though the wide confidence interval suggests the true effect could range from modest to substantial (Correct answer)
The wide confidence interval means the study should be disregarded
The p-value of 0.03 confirms that the intervention is highly effective
The intervention reduces readmissions by exactly 25% in all patient populations

Correct answer: The intervention likely reduces readmissions, though the wide confidence interval suggests the true effect could range from modest to substantial

Statistical significance (p=0.03) supports a real effect, but the 95% CI (5%–45%) indicates substantial uncertainty about the true effect size.

Question 30: All patients who have undergone a specific type of heart surgery are required to be on anticoagulant medication for six months. Mr. Smith has just had this exact surgery. Therefore, what is the logically certain conclusion?

Mr. Smith might have a higher risk of clotting without medication.
Most patients like Mr. Smith require anticoagulant medication.
Mr. Smith should be prescribed anticoagulant medication for six months. (Correct answer)
Mr. Smith will likely benefit from anticoagulant medication.

Correct answer: Mr. Smith should be prescribed anticoagulant medication for six months.

This scenario demonstrates deductive reasoning. It starts with a general, absolute rule (All patients with X surgery get Y medication) and applies it to a specific case (Mr. Smith had X surgery). The only logically certain conclusion that follows from these premises is that he should be prescribed the medication according to the rule.

Question 31: From the premises: 'All community-acquired pneumonias should be treated with empiric antibiotics within 4 hours of diagnosis' and 'Patient X was diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia at 10:00 AM,' which deductive conclusion is valid?

Patient X should receive empiric antibiotics if his oxygen saturation drops below 90%
Patient X requires antibiotics only if he is immunocompromised
Patient X may wait for culture results before starting antibiotics
Patient X should receive empiric antibiotics no later than 2:00 PM (Correct answer)

Correct answer: Patient X should receive empiric antibiotics no later than 2:00 PM

Applying the universal rule to the specific patient: diagnosis at 10:00 AM + 4-hour window = treatment no later than 2:00 PM.

Question 32: In a clinical trial for a new migraine medication, 70% of participants in the treatment group reported a significant reduction in pain, compared to 30% in the placebo group. A clinician is now considering prescribing this medication for a new patient with a similar history. Which of the following represents the strongest inductive reasoning based on this data?

The medication is the only effective treatment for this patient's migraines.
All patients will experience a 40% greater benefit from this medication than a placebo.
The medication is more likely to reduce the patient's pain than a placebo would. (Correct answer)
The patient will definitely experience a significant reduction in pain.

Correct answer: The medication is more likely to reduce the patient's pain than a placebo would.

Inductive reasoning in uncertain contexts involves making judgments about probability. The clinical trial data does not guarantee success for every individual, but it provides strong evidence that the medication is probably more effective than a placebo. This answer correctly reflects the probabilistic nature of the conclusion, avoiding the certainty of 'definitely' or making overly broad claims.

Question 33: An occupational therapist assesses a patient who may have early cognitive decline. Formal neuropsychological testing is pending. Which reasoning process BEST guides the interim clinical approach?

Accept the referral physician's impression as confirmed and plan accordingly
Withhold all clinical judgment until formal testing is complete to avoid premature labeling
Apply the most conservative intervention because any cognitive diagnosis is stigmatizing
Use functional observations, caregiver reports, and validated screening tools to form a provisional working hypothesis, while explicitly acknowledging the pending confirmation (Correct answer)

Correct answer: Use functional observations, caregiver reports, and validated screening tools to form a provisional working hypothesis, while explicitly acknowledging the pending confirmation

Inductive reasoning under uncertainty allows provisional clinical hypotheses from available data, with explicit acknowledgment of their tentative status until confirmation.

Question 34: What is hepatitis?

Inflammation of the liver (Correct answer)
Chronic liver disease
Scarring of the liver
Kidney stones

Correct answer: Inflammation of the liver

Hepatitis is the inflammation of the liver. It can have various causes, including viral infections, alcohol consumption, autoimmune diseases, or exposure to certain toxins. Inflammation of the liver can lead to liver damage and may contribute to conditions such as scarring of the liver (cirrhosis) or chronic liver disease. It is essential to identify the underlying cause of hepatitis for proper treatment and management. Kidney stones are unrelated to hepatitis; they involve the formation of solid particles in the kidneys.

Question 35: A medical student says: 'I'm 100% certain this patient has appendicitis.' An attending physician responds that clinical certainty is rarely appropriate in diagnosis. The attending's response reflects which key principle of inductive reasoning?

Expressing certainty motivates faster workup and treatment initiation
Inductive reasoning cannot produce confident diagnoses in clinical settings
The attending is being overly cautious and certainty is appropriate after thorough examination
Inductive conclusions are probabilistic, not certain — clinical diagnosis almost always involves degrees of confidence rather than absolute certainty (Correct answer)

Correct answer: Inductive conclusions are probabilistic, not certain — clinical diagnosis almost always involves degrees of confidence rather than absolute certainty

Inductive diagnostic reasoning produces probable conclusions, not logical certainties. Claiming 100% certainty ignores diagnostic uncertainty and its clinical consequences.

HSRT Exam

The Health Sciences Reasoning Test measures critical thinking skills essential for health science professionals across five reasoning domains.

Questions

50 min

Time Limit

65%

To Pass

Checking for saved progress...

Exam Rules

You can skip questions and return to them later
Flag questions for review before submitting
No feedback shown until you submit the entire exam
Unanswered questions count as wrong — answer everything
10 pretest questions are mixed in and don't affect your score
Timer auto-submits when time runs out
Your progress is auto-saved every 30 seconds