Clinical voice agents are now deployed in routine care, where real patients do not wait their turn: they interrupt. These systems typically use a cascaded architecture (speech-to-text -> LLM -> text-to-speech), so when a patient cuts the agent off mid-utterance, clinically required content can be lost even when the model handles cooperative transcripts well. Yet clinical conversational-AI benchmarks almost universally assume patients wait for the agent to finish, missing interruption-induced loss of required content. We present a transcript-based evaluation of interruption recovery, adapting conversation-analytic overlap categories into three operational types (recognitional, competitive, transitional sub-unit) and testing four deployment-oriented, non-reasoning LLM configurations across four cells spanning history-taking (information gathering) and FAQ (information provision), scored on whether the agent preserves the clinically required content. In the gathering cells, target-question failure varied across models; in the provision cells, where arms are directly comparable, failure rose for every model. Rankings differ across cells, and competitive FAQ interruption produced 30/30 provision-coverage failures for all four models (Wilson 95% CI: 88.6-100.0%; baseline 0/30 for three, 4/30 for Llama). A brief apology marker ("sorry to interrupt") shifts recovery by tens of percentage points, inconsistently across models, and for one it reduces recovery. Interruption robustness therefore cannot be a single score: evaluation must be content-grounded, reported per cell, and matched to the deployment's interruption profile.
Multi-turn medical consultation agents must decide what to ask, adapt to patient responses, and determine when the collected evidence is sufficient. However, coupled evaluation conflates the quality of the policy-elicited history with policy-specific terminal diagnosis generation: strong generation can compensate for a thin history, while weaker generation can obscure a rich one. We introduce MedDDC-Eval, a diagnosis-decoupled testbed that treats elicited history as the comparison object and holds the history-to-diagnosis mapping constant through a shared frozen reader. Across two held-out sources, a grounded interface and an auditable diagnosis-trajectory-efficiency (D/T/E) harness measure diagnostic usefulness, information acquisition, and efficiency. Directional semantic coverage followed by deterministic one-to-one assignment yields coherent precision-recall counts for open-ended items, with at most one credited match per prediction or reference. Holding histories fixed, changing only the diagnostic reader shifts diagnosis F1 by 2.2-19.0 points and reverses 18% and 36% of pairwise policy orderings on the Record and Dialogue splits. We further apply standard Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) over interactive multi-turn rollouts to post-train Qwen3-32B using diagnosis-result and trajectory feedback. On the 100-case Record and 70-case Dialogue splits, the trained policy improves over its initialization by 9.7 and 4.6 total-score points; removing either primary signal lowers held-out joint performance. These results show that MedDDC-Eval supports controlled attribution, interpretable elicited-history measurement, and evaluation-guided evidence-acquisition policy development.
Patient simulators are gaining traction in mental health training by providing scalable exposure to complex and sensitive patient interactions. Simulating depressed patients is particularly challenging, as safety constraints and high patient variability complicate simulations and underscore the need for simulators that capture diverse and realistic patient behaviors. However, existing evaluations heavily rely on LLM-judges with poorly specified prompts and do not assess behavioral diversity. We introduce PSI-Bench, an automatic evaluation framework that provides interpretable, clinically grounded diagnostics of depression patient simulator behavior across turn-, dialogue-, and population-level dimensions. Using PSI-Bench, we benchmark seven LLMs across two simulator frameworks and find that simulators produce overly long, lexically diverse responses, show reduced variability, resolve emotions too quickly, and follow a uniform negative-to-positive trajectory. We also show that the simulation framework has a larger impact on fidelity than the model scale. Results from a human study demonstrate that our benchmark is strongly aligned with expert judgments. Our work reveals key limitations of current depression patient simulators and provides an interpretable, extensible benchmark to guide future simulator design and evaluation.