Schuelper, Nikolai

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","189"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Medical Education"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","21"],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","de Temple, Insa"],["dc.contributor.author","Middeke, Angélina"],["dc.contributor.author","Anders, Sven"],["dc.contributor.author","Morton, Caroline"],["dc.contributor.author","Schuelper, Nikolai"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-06-01T09:42:15Z"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-08-18T12:36:29Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-06-01T09:42:15Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-08-18T12:36:29Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021-03-30"],["dc.date.updated","2022-07-29T12:17:19Z"],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract\r\n \r\n Background\r\n 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.\r\n \r\n \r\n Methods\r\n 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.\r\n \r\n \r\n Results\r\n 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).\r\n \r\n \r\n Conclusions\r\n 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."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2021"],["dc.identifier.citation","BMC Medical Education. 2021 Mar 30;21(1):189"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s12909-021-02591-1"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/17750"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/85191"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/112952"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-425"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.publisher","BioMed Central"],["dc.relation.eissn","1472-6920"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.holder","The Author(s)"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.subject","Guideline"],["dc.subject","Emergency"],["dc.subject","Management"],["dc.subject","Digital"],["dc.subject","Simulation"],["dc.subject","Serious game"],["dc.title","Effectiveness of a serious game addressing guideline adherence: cohort study with 1.5-year follow-up"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","e0203851"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","9"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","PLOS ONE"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","13"],["dc.contributor.author","Middeke, Angélina"],["dc.contributor.author","Anders, Sven"],["dc.contributor.author","Schuelper, Madita"],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Schuelper, Nikolai"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:46:07Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:46:07Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.description.abstract","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."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1371/journal.pone.0203851"],["dc.identifier.pmid","30204773"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/15397"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/15700"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/59380"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","Training of clinical reasoning with a Serious Game versus small-group problem-based learning: A prospective study"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","75"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Simulation in Healthcare"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","81"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","15"],["dc.contributor.author","Middeke, Angélina"],["dc.contributor.author","Anders, Sven"],["dc.contributor.author","Raupach, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Schuelper, Nikolai"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-04-14T08:26:39Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-04-14T08:26:39Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1097/SIH.0000000000000407"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/82030"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-399"],["dc.relation.eissn","1559-713X"],["dc.relation.issn","1559-2332"],["dc.title","Transfer of Clinical Reasoning Trained With a Serious Game to Comparable Clinical Problems"],["dc.title.alternative","A Prospective Randomized Study"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]