Escape room as a novel team-based activity during residency selection in anaesthesiology.

IF 2.2 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-18 DOI:10.4103/ija.ija_162_26
Jia Y Lim, Angela Y J Tan, Jason J I Chan, Xin F Leong, Zhongxi Zheng, Sui A Lie
{"title":"Escape room as a novel team-based activity during residency selection in anaesthesiology.","authors":"Jia Y Lim, Angela Y J Tan, Jason J I Chan, Xin F Leong, Zhongxi Zheng, Sui A Lie","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_162_26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Residency selection in anaesthesiology traditionally relies on curriculum vitae review, work-based assessments, and behavioural interviews which may not adequately capture non-academic attributes. Emerging evidence suggests team-based assessments may offer a more dynamic evaluation of such qualities. This study explores the feasibility and acceptability of an escape room in Anaesthesiology residency selection and evaluates its potential to provide additional insights into candidate ranking.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this pilot study, 26 candidates completed a team-based escape room activity assessing situational awareness, task management, and communication. Evaluations were conducted via customised rubric based on Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) domains, alongside traditional interviews. Escape room, interviews, and department survey scores were correlated with the final rank order list (ROL) using Spearman's coefficient. Candidate and panel feedback were collected post activity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The candidates rated the escape room as part of the selection process positively. The panel feedback was generally supportive, though some suggested improving consistency and ease of evaluation. Interview (r = 0.603, <i>P</i> = 0.001) and survey scores (r = 0.921, <i>P</i> < 0.001) correlated strongly with the ROL, while escape room scores demonstrated a weak correlation (r = 0.244, <i>P</i> = 0.229). The lack of correlation likely reflects the low weight assigned to the escape room, consistent with its role as a complementary assessment, without implying direct impact on final ranking. Weak correlations with interview (r = 0.197, <i>P</i> = 0.334) and survey scores (r = 0.172, <i>P</i> = 0.400) suggest it may capture complementary attributes not assessed by traditional methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Escape rooms offer a novel approach to assessing non-academic attributes in residency selection, though further refinement is needed for consistent application.</p>","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"70 6","pages":"726-732"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13322587/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_162_26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Residency selection in anaesthesiology traditionally relies on curriculum vitae review, work-based assessments, and behavioural interviews which may not adequately capture non-academic attributes. Emerging evidence suggests team-based assessments may offer a more dynamic evaluation of such qualities. This study explores the feasibility and acceptability of an escape room in Anaesthesiology residency selection and evaluates its potential to provide additional insights into candidate ranking.

Methods: In this pilot study, 26 candidates completed a team-based escape room activity assessing situational awareness, task management, and communication. Evaluations were conducted via customised rubric based on Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) domains, alongside traditional interviews. Escape room, interviews, and department survey scores were correlated with the final rank order list (ROL) using Spearman's coefficient. Candidate and panel feedback were collected post activity.

Results: The candidates rated the escape room as part of the selection process positively. The panel feedback was generally supportive, though some suggested improving consistency and ease of evaluation. Interview (r = 0.603, P = 0.001) and survey scores (r = 0.921, P < 0.001) correlated strongly with the ROL, while escape room scores demonstrated a weak correlation (r = 0.244, P = 0.229). The lack of correlation likely reflects the low weight assigned to the escape room, consistent with its role as a complementary assessment, without implying direct impact on final ranking. Weak correlations with interview (r = 0.197, P = 0.334) and survey scores (r = 0.172, P = 0.400) suggest it may capture complementary attributes not assessed by traditional methods.

Conclusion: Escape rooms offer a novel approach to assessing non-academic attributes in residency selection, though further refinement is needed for consistent application.

在麻醉学住院医师选择中,密室逃生是一种新颖的团队活动。
背景和目的:麻醉学住院医师的选择传统上依赖于简历审查、基于工作的评估和行为访谈,这些可能无法充分捕捉非学术属性。新出现的证据表明,基于团队的评估可能会对这些品质提供更动态的评估。本研究探讨了麻醉学住院医师选择中密室逃生的可行性和可接受性,并评估其潜力,为候选人排名提供额外的见解。方法:在这项初步研究中,26名候选人完成了以团队为基础的密室逃生活动,评估态势感知、任务管理和沟通。评估通过基于研究生医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)领域的定制标题以及传统访谈进行。逃脱室、访谈和部门调查得分使用Spearman系数与最终rank order list (ROL)相关。活动结束后收集候选人和小组的反馈。结果:候选人对密室密室的评价是积极的,这是选择过程的一部分。小组的反馈大体上是支持的,尽管有些人建议改进评价的一致性和便利性。访谈得分(r = 0.603, P = 0.001)和调查得分(r = 0.921, P < 0.001)与ROL有较强的相关性,密室逃生得分与ROL有较弱的相关性(r = 0.244, P = 0.229)。缺乏相关性可能反映了密室密室被赋予的权重较低,这与它作为补充评估的作用是一致的,并不意味着对最终排名有直接影响。与访谈(r = 0.197, P = 0.334)和调查分数(r = 0.172, P = 0.400)的弱相关性表明,它可能捕捉到传统方法无法评估的互补属性。结论:逃生室为评估住院医师选择中的非学术属性提供了一种新颖的方法,尽管需要进一步完善以保持一致的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书