Comparing Basic Life Support Serious Gaming Scores With Hands-on Training Platform Performance Scores: Pilot Simulation Study for Basic Life Support Training

Mehmet Emin Aksoy, Mehmet Emin Aksoy

Abstract

Background: Serious games enrich simulation-based health care trainings and improve knowledge, skills, and self-confidence of learners while entertaining them.

Objective: A platform which can combine performance data from a basic life support (BLS) serious game app and hands-on data based on the same scoring system is not available in the market. The aim of this study was to create such a platform and investigate whether performance evaluation of BLS trainings would be more objective compared to conventional Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) examinations if these evaluations were carried out with the platform which combines OSCE scoring criteria with sensor data retrieved from the simulator's sensors.

Methods: Participants were 25 volunteers (11 men [44.0%] and 14 [56.0] women) among Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University students without prior knowledge of the BLS protocol. A serious game module has been created for teaching learners the European Resuscitation Council Basic Life Support 2015 protocol. A second module called the hands-on module was designed for educators. This module includes a checklist used for BLS OSCE examinations and can retrieve sensor data such as compression depth, compression frequency, and ventilation volume from the manikin (CPR Lilly; 3B Scientific GmbH) via Bluetooth. Data retrieved from the sensors of the manikin enable educators to evaluate learners in a more objective way. Performance data retrieved from the serious gaming module have been combined with the results of the hands-on module. Data acquired from the hands-on module have also been compared with the results of conventional OSCE scores of the participants, which were obtained by watching the videos of the same trainings.

Results: Participants were considered successful in the game if they scored 80/100 or above. Overall, participants scored 80 or above in an average of 1.4 (SD 0.65) trials. The average BLS serious game score was 88.3/100 (SD 5.17) and hands-on average score was 70.7/100 (SD 17.3), whereas the OSCE average score was 84.4/100 (SD 12.9). There was no statistically significant correlation between success on trials (score ≥80/100), serious game, hands-on training app, and OSCE scores (Spearman rho test, P>.05). The mean BLS serious game score of the participants was 88.3/100 (SD 5.17), whereas their mean hands-on training app score was 70.7/100 (SD 17.3) and OSCE score was 84.4/100 (SD 12.9).

Conclusions: Although scoring criteria for OSCE and hands-on training app were identical, OSCE scores were 17% higher than hands-on training app scores. After analyzing the difference of scores between hands-on training app and OSCE, it has been revealed that these differences originate from scoring parameters such as compression depth, compression frequency, and ventilation volume. These data suggest that evaluation of BLS trainings would be more objective if these evaluations were carried out with the modality, which combines visual OSCE scoring criteria with sensor data retrieved from the simulator's sensors.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04533893; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT04533893.

Keywords: basic life support; medical simulation; serious gaming.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Mehmet Emin Aksoy. Originally published in JMIR Serious Games (http://games.jmir.org), 25.11.2020.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Design of the study flow.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Screen captures from the Basic Life Support Serious Game Module.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Performance report of BLS serious game app.
Figure 4
Figure 4
System architecture of the platform.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Screen capture of the Hands-on app.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Hands-on app past performance screen.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Performance report screen hands-on app.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Android App Architecture.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Serious game scores und number of trials of 25 participants.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Serious game, hands-on training app and OSCE scores of 25 participants.

References

    1. Olszewski AE, Wolbrink TA. Serious Gaming in Medical Education: A Proposed Structured Framework for Game Development. Simul Healthc. 2017 Aug;12(4):240–253. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000212.
    1. Thorne K. Blended learning how to integrate online & traditional learning. London: Kogan Page; 2003. pp. 35–70.
    1. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The Impact of E-learning in Medical Education. Acad Med. 2006 Mar;81(3):207–12. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002.
    1. Sanderson PE. E-Learning: strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. The Internet and Higher Education. 2002 Jun;5(2):185–188. doi: 10.1016/s1096-7516(02)00082-9.
    1. Prensky M. Digital game-based learning. Comput Entertain. 2003 Oct;1(1):21. doi: 10.1145/950566.950596.
    1. Michael D, Chen S. Serious Games: Games That Educate, Train and Inform. Canada: Thomson Course Technology; 2006. pp. 17–43.
    1. Sturpe DA, Huynh D, Haines ST. Scoring objective structured clinical examinations using video monitors or video recordings. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010 Apr 12;74(3):44. doi: 10.5688/aj740344.
    1. Kelly MA, Mitchell ML, Henderson A, Jeffrey CA, Groves M, Nulty DD, Glover P, Knight S. OSCE best practice guidelines-applicability for nursing simulations. Adv Simul (Lond) 2016 Apr 2;1(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s41077-016-0014-1.
    1. Smith KK, Gilcreast D, Pierce K. Evaluation of staff's retention of ACLS and BLS skills. Resuscitation. 2008 Jul;78(1):59–65. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2008.02.007.
    1. Perkins GD, Handley AJ, Koster RW, Castrén M, Smyth MA, Olasveengen T, Monsieurs KG, Raffay V, Gräsner J-T, Wenzel V, Ristagno G, Soar J, Adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation Collaborators European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 2. Adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation. Resuscitation. 2015 Oct;95:81–99. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.015.
    1. Koster RW, Baubin MA, Bossaert LL, Caballero A, Cassan P, Castrén M, Granja C, Handley AJ, Monsieurs KG, Perkins GD, Raffay V, Sandroni C. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 2. Adult basic life support and use of automated external defibrillators. Resuscitation. 2010 Oct;81(10):1277–92. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.08.009.
    1. Ocheja P, Flanagan B, Ogata H. Connecting decentralized learning records: a blockchain based learning analytics platform. LAK '18: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge; 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge; 5-9 March 2018; Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2018. pp. 265–269.
    1. Clemnte FJG, Cubillo LT, Dormido S, Salzmann C, Gillet D. Collecting experience data from remotely hosted learning applications. In: Auer ME, Zutin DG, editors. Online Engineering & Internet of Things. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2018. Jan, pp. 170–181.
    1. Muloz MLA, Orfali CH. The Role of Learning Management Systems (LMS) in Educational Environments: Didactic and Technical Use. ICERI2018 Proceedings; 11th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation; 12-14 November, 2018; Seville, Spain. Valencia, Spain: IATED; 2018. pp. 10473–10479.
    1. Jin Q. In: Distance Education Environments and Emerging Software Systems New Technologies. Jin Q, editor. Hershey, PA: IGI Global; 2011. May 31, pp. 3–342.
    1. Bijl JL, Boer CA. Advanced 3D visualization for simulation using game technology. Proceedings of the 2011 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC); 2011 Winter Simulation Conference; 2011; Phoenix, AZ. New York: IEEE; 2011. pp. 2810–2821.
    1. Ratcliffe J, Simons A. How Can 3D Game Engines Create Photo-Realistic Interactive Architectural Visualizations?. E-Learning and Games; International Conference on Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment; 26-28 June 2017; Bournemouth, United Kingdom. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. pp. 1–11.
    1. Teyseyre A, Campo M. An Overview of 3D Software Visualization. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graphics. 2009 Jan;15(1):87–105. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2008.86.
    1. Zeckzer D, Müller R. Past, Present, and Future of 3D Software Visualization - A Systematic Literature Analysis. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications - Volume 1; IVAPP 2015 - 6th International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications; 2015; Berlin, Germany. Portugal: Science and Technology Publications, LDA; 2015. Mar, pp. 63–74.
    1. Ploor DM. Video Game Design Foundations Software Design Guide. 2nd edition. Tinley Park, IL: Goodheart-Willcox Company; 2014. pp. 5–410.
    1. Unity Game Engine. [2020-04-18].
    1. Adzharuddin N. Learning Management System (LMS) among University Students: Does It Work? IJEEEE. 2013;3(3):248–252. doi: 10.7763/ijeeee.2013.v3.233.
    1. Wannapiroon P, Kaewrattanapat N, Premsmith J. Development of Cloud Learning Management Systems for Higher Education Institutions. 2019 Research, Invention, and Innovation Congress (RI2C); 2019 Research, Invention, and Innovation Congress; 2019; Bangkok, Thailand. New York: IEEE; 2019. pp. 1–6.
    1. Iqbal S. Learning Management Systems (LMS): Inside Matters. IMBR. 2011 Oct 15;3(4):206–216. doi: 10.22610/imbr.v3i4.935.
    1. Bergeron B. Application of learning record stores and other forms of electronic competency records in modeling competency degradation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;196(23(8)):23–28.
    1. Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative. [2019-01-07]. .
    1. Schardosim SJL. Model for Recording Learning Experience Data from Remote Laboratories Using xAPI. Proceedings of the XIII Latin American Conference on Learning Technologies; XIII Latin American Conference on Learning Technologies; 2018; Sao Paolo, Brazil. New York: IEEE; 2018. pp. 450–457.
    1. MedCalc, version 12.7.7 [Statistical Software] [2020-08-21].
    1. Creutzfeldt J, Hedman L, Felländer-Tsai Li. Effects of pre-training using serious game technology on CPR performance-an exploratory quasi-experimental transfer study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012 Dec 06;20(1):79. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-20-79.
    1. Semeraro F, Frisoli A, Ristagno G, Loconsole C, Marchetti L, Scapigliati A, Pellis T, Grieco N, Cerchiari EL. Relive: a serious game to learn how to save lives. Resuscitation. 2014 Jul;85(7):e109–10. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.03.306.
    1. Boada I, Rodriguez-Benitez A, Garcia-Gonzalez JM, Olivet J, Carreras V, Sbert M. Using a serious game to complement CPR instruction in a nurse faculty. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2015 Nov;122(2):282–91. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2015.08.006.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj