Effectiveness of a serious game addressing guideline adherence: cohort study with 1.5-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with acute shortness of breath and chest pain should be managed according to guideline recommendations. Serious games can be used to train clinical reasoning. However, only few studies have used outcomes beyond student satisfaction, and most of the published evidence is based on short-term follow-up. This study investigated the effectiveness of a digital simulation of an emergency ward regarding appropriate clinical decision-making. METHODS: In this prospective trial that ran from summer 2017 to winter 2018/19 at Göttingen Medical University Centre, a total of 178 students enrolled in either the fourth or the fifth year of undergraduate medical education took six 90-min sessions of playing a serious game ('training phase') in which they managed virtual patients presenting with various conditions. Learning outcome was assessed by analysing log-files of in-game activity (including choice of diagnostic methods, differential diagnosis and treatment initiation) with regard to history taking and patient management in three virtual patient cases: Non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), pulmonary embolism (PE) and hypertensive crisis. Fourth-year students were followed up for 1.5 years, and their final performance was compared to the performance of students who had never been exposed to the game but had otherwise taken the same five-year undergraduate course. RESULTS: During the training phase, overall performance scores increased from 57.6 ± 1.1% to 65.5 ± 1.2% (p < 0.001; effect size 0.656). Performance remained stable over 1.5 years, and the final assessment revealed a strong impact of ever-exposure to the game on management scores (72.6 ± 1.2% vs. 63.5 ± 2.1%, p < 0.001; effect size 0.811). Pre-exposed students were more than twice as likely to correctly diagnose NSTEMI and PE and showed significantly greater adherence to guideline recommendations (e.g., troponin measurement and D-dimer testing in suspected PE). CONCLUSIONS: The considerable difference observed between previously exposed and unexposed students suggests a long-term effect of using the game although retention of specific virtual patient cases rather than general principles might partially account for this effect. Thus, the game may foster the implementation of guideline recommendations.

Use of a Serious Game to Teach Infectious Disease Management in Medical School: Effectiveness and Transfer to a Clinical Examination.

Purpose: Physicians of all specialties must be familiar with important principles of infectious diseases, but curricular time for this content is limited and clinical teaching requires considerable resources in terms of available patients and teachers. Serious games are scalable interventions that can help standardize teaching. This study assessed whether knowledge and skills acquired in a serious game translate to better performance in a clinical examination. Methods: Fifth-year undergraduate medical students (n = 100) at Goettingen Medical School were randomized to three groups receiving different levels of exposure to virtual patients presenting with signs and symptoms of either infective endocarditis or community-acquired pneumonia in a serious game simulating an accident and emergency department. Student performance was assessed based on game logfiles and an objective standardized clinical examination (OSCE). Results: Higher exposure to virtual patients in the serious game did not result in superior OSCE scores. However, there was good agreement between student performance in the OSCE and in game logfiles (r = 0.477, p = 0.005). An Item Response Theory analysis suggested that items from the serious game covered a wider range of ability, thus better differentiating between students within a given cohort. Conclusion: Repeated exposure to virtual patients with infectious diseases in a serious game did not directly impact on exam performance but game logfiles might be good and resource-sparing indicators of student ability. One advantage of using serious games in medical education is standardized content, a lower inhibition threshold to learn, and a need of less staff time compared to small-group clinical teaching.

Transfer of Clinical Reasoning Trained With a Serious Game to Comparable Clinical Problems: A Prospective Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: Serious Games can be used effectively for clinical reasoning training in medical education. Case specificity of learning outcome elicited by Serious Games has not been studied in detail. This study investigated whether learning outcome elicited by repeated exposure to virtual patient cases is transferable to other cases addressing similar problems. METHODS: In this monocentric, prospective, randomized trial, 69 fifth-year medical students participated in ten 90-minute sessions of using a computer-based emergency ward simulation game. Students were randomized to 3 groups (A, B, AB) and subsequently exposed to up to 46 different virtual patients. Group A was presented with 2 specific cases that were not shown in group B and vice versa. Group AB was exposed to all 4 specific cases. After 6 weeks of using the game as a learning resource, students were presented with 4 cases addressing similar problems. For each case, an aggregate score reflecting clinical reasoning was calculated, and performance was compared across groups. RESULTS: In the final session, there were no significant between-group differences regarding the sum score reflecting aggregated performance in all 4 cases (A: 66.5 ± 7.2% vs. B: 61.9 ± 12.4% vs. AB: 64.8 ± 11.1%, P = 0.399). An item-by-item analysis revealed that there were no between-group differences regarding correct therapeutic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Previous exposure had limited impact on subsequent performance in similar cases. This study suggests that case specificity of learning outcome elicited by the serious game is low and that acquired higher-order cognitive functions may transfer to similar virtual patients.

Training of clinical reasoning with a Serious Game versus small-group problem-based learning: A prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Serious Games are increasingly being used in undergraduate medical education. They are usually intended to enhance learning with a focus on knowledge acquisition and skills development. According to the current literature, few studies have assessed their effectiveness regarding clinical reasoning (CR). The aim of this prospective study was to compare a Serious Game, the virtual Accident & Emergency department 'EMERGE' to small-group problem-based learning (PBL) regarding student learning outcome on clinical reasoning in the short term. METHODS: A total of 112 final-year medical students self-selected to participate in ten 90-minute sessions of either small-group PBL or playing EMERGE. CR was assessed in a formative examination consisting of six key feature cases and a final 45-minute EMERGE session. RESULTS: Overall, the EMERGE group (n = 78) scored significantly higher than the PBL group (n = 34) in the key feature examination (62.5 (IQR: 17.7)% vs. 54.2 (IQR: 21.9)%; p = 0.015). There was no significant difference in performance levels between groups regarding those cases which had been discussed in both instructional formats during the training phase. In the final EMERGE session, the EMERGE group achieved significantly better results than the PBL group in all four cases regarding the total score as well as in three of four cases regarding the final diagnosis and the correct therapeutic interventions. CONCLUSION: EMERGE can be used effectively for CR training in undergraduate medical education. The difference in key feature exam scores was driven by additional exposure to more cases in EMERGE compared to PBL despite identical learning time in both instructional formats. EMERGE is a potential alternative to intensive small-group teaching. Further work is needed to establish how Serious Games enhance CR most effectively.

[Choosing Wisely in medical education]. / Klug entscheiden in der Lehre.

Choosing Wisely recommendations address situations where physicians will have to make decisions about further diagnostic and therapeutic steps. Undergraduate medical education needs to equip students with the foundations on which clinical reasoning skills can be acquired and fostered throughout their clinical career. Teaching these skills usually involves patients (e.g., bedside teaching, electives, clinical attachments) but it can also be delivered in the format of formalised small-group, case-based learning. Case-based key feature tests have been developed to facilitate the assessment of learning outcomes related to clinical reasoning. Repeated testing with key feature cases yields better medium-term retention than repeatedly studying the same material (without questions). The project 'Choosing Wisely in medical education', which was funded by the German Association for Internal Medicine, involves the creation of key feature cases with reference to the German set of Choosing Wisely recommendations. This article presents the results of the first pilot study using these new cases.