� 1 Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, asks us to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in deeming a seven year old child incompetent to testify in a criminal action. We must also determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the child’s statement to her physician, which implicated Appellee as the perpetrator, was inadmissible under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 803(4). We hold that the trial court properly found the child incompetent to testify because there is ample evidence in the record to support the trial court’s conclusion that the child was unable to perceive or coherently convey the events which allegedly occurred. We also hold that the trial court properly barred the child’s statement to the physician concerning the identity of the perpetrator, because the child’s statement was not essential to the child’s medical diagnosis or treatment as required by Pa.R.E. 803(4). Accordingly, we affirm.
� 2 The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On April 2, 1998, Appellee was the subject of a criminal complaint alleging that he committed the following offenses against his minor daughter: rape, *fn1 involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (2 counts), *fn2 indecent assault, *fn3 corruption of minors, *fn4 and endangering welfare of children. *fn5 These charges stemmed from sexual activity allegedly occurring between October 1996 and June 1997, when the child was approximately four years old. During this period, Appellee had physical custody of the child as the child resided in the home of Appellee and his paramour.
� 3 On June 16, 1997, Child Protective Services received a report of suspected child abuse. Specifically, the child alleged that Appellee touched her in the vaginal and buttocks area and physically abused her. She further alleged that she bled during the course of the sexual contact. The report was transmitted to Erie County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”). Amy Hoffman, a CYS caseworker, conducted a series of four interviews with the child concerning the allegations of abuse. Three of the interviews were tape recorded. Ms. Hoffman independently interviewed the child’s two siblings, who were also living with Appellee during the relevant period.
