Utilization of Escape Room Gamification for Medical Toxicology Education of Emergency Medicine Residents

IF 1.6 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Anjali Cherukuri, Nicky Chung, Ariella Gartenberg, Joshua Bloom, Anthony Scoccimarro, Oark Ahmed, Debayan Guha, Andrew Restivo, Christina Ciraco, Kyle Kennedy, Jason Siebert, Jeremy Sperling, Maninder Singh
{"title":"Utilization of Escape Room Gamification for Medical Toxicology Education of Emergency Medicine Residents","authors":"Anjali Cherukuri,&nbsp;Nicky Chung,&nbsp;Ariella Gartenberg,&nbsp;Joshua Bloom,&nbsp;Anthony Scoccimarro,&nbsp;Oark Ahmed,&nbsp;Debayan Guha,&nbsp;Andrew Restivo,&nbsp;Christina Ciraco,&nbsp;Kyle Kennedy,&nbsp;Jason Siebert,&nbsp;Jeremy Sperling,&nbsp;Maninder Singh","doi":"10.1002/aet2.70233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Medical toxicology is a core area of competence laid out by the American Board of Emergency Medicine (EM). While traditional lecture-based education is crucial for knowledge acquisition, innovative approaches such as escape room gamification may enhance resident engagement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The authors aimed to compare the effectiveness of in-person escape room gamification with traditional didactic teaching for toxicology education among EM residents.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A randomized crossover study was conducted at a large urban academic simulation center. EM residents were assigned to receive medical toxicology education through escape room gamification or traditional lecture. Knowledge acquisition was assessed using a 10-item multiple choice test administered pre- and post-intervention, with knowledge retention at 4–6 weeks. A Likert-Scale survey was utilized to assess participant satisfaction and perceptions. Paired two-tailed <i>t</i>-tests were used for analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Fifty-one EM residents across various post-graduate years (PGY 1–4) participated in the study. Average knowledge scores graded from 0 to 10 improved significantly after both gamification (6.67 ± 1.90, <i>p</i> = 0.043) and lecture-based education (7.04 ± 1.46, <i>p</i> = 0.001) compared to pre-intervention (5.78 ± 1.53). Most participants (73.5%) preferred escape room gamification. No difference was detected at 4–6 weeks retention assessment, with scores remaining significantly higher than baseline (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Escape room gamification demonstrated comparable knowledge acquisition and retention to traditional lectures. Gamification was preferred by learners. Gamification is a feasible, effective, and engaging adjunct for teaching medical toxicology to EM residents.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":"10 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.70233","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Medical toxicology is a core area of competence laid out by the American Board of Emergency Medicine (EM). While traditional lecture-based education is crucial for knowledge acquisition, innovative approaches such as escape room gamification may enhance resident engagement.

Objectives

The authors aimed to compare the effectiveness of in-person escape room gamification with traditional didactic teaching for toxicology education among EM residents.

Methods

A randomized crossover study was conducted at a large urban academic simulation center. EM residents were assigned to receive medical toxicology education through escape room gamification or traditional lecture. Knowledge acquisition was assessed using a 10-item multiple choice test administered pre- and post-intervention, with knowledge retention at 4–6 weeks. A Likert-Scale survey was utilized to assess participant satisfaction and perceptions. Paired two-tailed t-tests were used for analysis.

Results

Fifty-one EM residents across various post-graduate years (PGY 1–4) participated in the study. Average knowledge scores graded from 0 to 10 improved significantly after both gamification (6.67 ± 1.90, p = 0.043) and lecture-based education (7.04 ± 1.46, p = 0.001) compared to pre-intervention (5.78 ± 1.53). Most participants (73.5%) preferred escape room gamification. No difference was detected at 4–6 weeks retention assessment, with scores remaining significantly higher than baseline (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Escape room gamification demonstrated comparable knowledge acquisition and retention to traditional lectures. Gamification was preferred by learners. Gamification is a feasible, effective, and engaging adjunct for teaching medical toxicology to EM residents.

逃生室游戏化在急诊科住院医师医学毒理学教育中的应用。
背景:医学毒理学是美国急诊医学委员会(EM)制定的核心能力领域。虽然传统的以讲座为基础的教育对于知识获取至关重要,但逃脱室游戏化等创新方法可能会提高居民的参与度。目的:作者旨在比较面对面密室游戏化与传统教学毒理学教育在EM居民中的有效性。方法:在某大型城市学术模拟中心进行随机交叉研究。EM居民通过密室游戏化或传统讲座接受医学毒理学教育。知识获取通过干预前和干预后的10项多项选择测试进行评估,知识保留在4-6周。李克特量表调查被用来评估参与者的满意度和看法。采用配对双尾t检验进行分析。结果:51名EM住院医师在不同的研究生阶段(PGY 1-4)参与了研究。0 ~ 10分的平均知识得分在游戏化(6.67±1.90,p = 0.043)和讲座式教育(7.04±1.46,p = 0.001)后均较干预前(5.78±1.53)有显著提高。大多数参与者(73.5%)更喜欢密室逃生游戏化。在4-6周的记忆评估中没有发现差异,得分仍然明显高于基线(p结论:逃脱室游戏化与传统讲座相比,在知识获取和记忆方面具有可比性。学习者更喜欢游戏化。游戏化是一种可行、有效和引人入胜的辅助教学医学毒理学给急诊住院医师。
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
AEM Education and Training
AEM Education and Training Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
89
×
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