Electronic feedback alone vs. electronic feedback plus in-person debriefing, for a serious game designed to teach novice anesthesiology residents to perform general anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract

Background: EmergenCSimTM, is a novel researcher-developed serious game (SG) with an embedded scoring and feedback tool that reproduces an obstetric operating room environment. The learner must perform general anesthesia (GA) for emergent cesarean delivery (CD) for umbilical cord prolapse. The game was developed as an alternative teaching tool because of diminishing real-world exposure of anesthesiology trainees to this clinical scenario. Traditional debriefing (facilitator-guided reflection) is considered to be integral to experiential learning but requires the participation of an instructor. The optimal debriefing methods for SGs have not been well-studied. Electronic feedback is commonly provided at the conclusion of SGs, so we aimed to compare the effectiveness of learning when an in-person debrief is added to electronic feedback compared to using electronic feedback alone.

Objective: We hypothesized that an in-person debriefing in addition to the SG-embedded electronic feedback will provide superior learning than electronic feedback alone.

Methods: Novice 1st year anesthesiology residents (CA-1) (n=51) (i) watched a recorded lecture on GA for emergent CD, (ii) took a 26-item multiple-choice question (MCQ) pre-test, and (iii) played EmergenCSimTM (maximum score 196.5). They were randomized to either the control group which experienced the electronic feedback alone (Group EF, n=26) or the intervention group, which experienced the SG-embedded electronic feedback and an in-person debriefing (Group IPD+EF, n=25). All subjects played the SG a 2nd time, with instructions to try to increase their score, then they took a 26-item MCQ post-test. Pre-and post-tests (maximum score of 26 points each), were validated parallel forms.

Results: For Groups EF and IPD+EF respectively, mean pre-test scores were18.6 (SD 2.5) and 19.4 (SD 2.3), and mean post-test scores were 22.6 (SD 2.2) and 22.1 (SD 1.6); F=1.8, P =.19. SG scores for Groups EF and IPD+EF respectively were - mean 1st play SG scores of 135 (SE 4.4) and 141 (SE 4.5), and mean 2nd play SG scores were 163.1 (SE 2.9) and 173.3 (SE 2.9); F= 137.7, P < .001.

Conclusions: Adding an in-person debriefing experience led to greater improvement in SG scores, emphasizing the learning benefits of this practice. Improved SG performance in both groups suggests that SGs have a role as independent, less resource-intensive educational tools.

Clinicaltrial: None.