Objectives: Learners’ pediatric emergency medicine experiences are variable. With computer simulation modules, learners experience rare or high-stakes scenarios on their own time and pace with repetition without the resources associated with traditional simulation. This study compares third-year medical students’ knowledge and confidence acquisition after participating in an author-created serious game or analogous traditional in-person simulation of a pediatric septic shock scenario. Methods: Participants were randomized to the traditional simulation or serious game. They completed a knowledge pretest, assigned simulation with corresponding debriefing, posttest, and survey. Results: Ninety students enrolled in 11 sessions. While the groups’ knowledge acquisition game mean 4.46 (standard deviation 0.38) vs traditional 3.86 (0.38) and self-perceived confidence change in managing septic shock ( P = 0.19) were similar, knowledge acquisition did not meet the prespecified threshold proving “noninferiority.” The traditional group had greater confidence change in recognizing septic shock ( P = 0.03). The traditional group had higher levels of agreement with “The simulation was realistic” ( P < 0.001). However, both groups similarly agreed with “The simulation experience was enjoyable” ( P = 0.07) and “I would be interested in doing more simulations like this in the future for other medical topics” ( P = 0.36). Conclusion: Third-year medical students randomized to the created serious game or traditional simulation had similar knowledge acquisition and change in self-perceived confidence for managing septic shock but not in confidence gain for recognizing septic shock. While the traditional group found the experience more realistic, both groups had comparable enjoyment and levels of interest in doing more similar simulations.
Ichwan et al. (Tue,) studied this question.