Emergency Medicine · Medical Literature
Effect of scenario-based simulation on students' learning outcomes and satisfaction in perioperative anaphylaxis: a pilot randomised controlled trial.
Abstract
Perioperative anaphylaxis is a rare but complex clinical crisis, with outcomes heavily dependent on prompt and effective management by anaesthesiologists. However, evidence supporting the efficacy of scenario-based simulation (SBS) training in perioperative anaphylaxis management remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of SBS versus video-based training (VBT) on learning outcomes and satisfaction among undergraduate anaesthesia students. In this prospective randomised study, 84 fourth-year anaesthesia undergraduate students from Anhui Medical University were assigned to either SBS or VBT for perioperative anaphylaxis education. Knowledge assessments were conducted before (pretest) and after (post-test) training. Outcomes included post-test scores, student satisfaction (assessed via a 5-point Likert scale) and performance in a simulated clinical scenario 1 week later. Scenario performance was evaluated using a technical checklist and the Anesthesiologists' Non-Technical Skills scoring system. Baseline characteristics (age, sex and pretest scores) were comparable between groups. The post-test scores were higher in the SBS group than those of the VBT group (80.0 (73.7-85.0) vs 70.0 (65.0-75.0), respectively, p<0.001). Both groups improved in post-test scores after training. The SBS group's post-test score increased significantly more than that of the VBT group (39.2% (30.7%-44.6%) vs 16.6% (8.3%-20.0%), respectively, p<0.001). In the simulation scenario test, the SBS group outperformed the VBT group in both technical (33.5 (31.0-36.0) vs 28.0 (26.0-30.0), p<0.001) and non-technical skills (47.5 (44.0-51.0) vs 43.0 (42.0-48.0), p=0.002). SBS demonstrates greater efficacy than VBT in improving anaesthesia students' learning outcomes, including technical and non-technical skills in managing perioperative anaphylaxis, with higher student satisfaction.
Clinical relevance
Does scenario-based simulation (SBS) training improve knowledge, non-technical skills performance, and student satisfaction compared with video-based training (VBT) among undergraduate anaesthesia students learning perioperative anaphylaxis management? __SNAPSHOT__ {"studyDesign":"Pilot prospective randomised controlled trial","setting":"Anhui Medical University, China (single-centre undergraduate anaesthesia programme)","sampleSize":"n=84 (SBS: not reported; VBT: not reported; group allocation sizes not specified in abstract)","population":"Fourth-year undergraduate anaesthesia students with comparable baseline characteristics (age, sex, and pretest scores) between groups","intervention":"Scenario-based simulation (SBS) training for perioperative anaphylaxis management","comparator":"Video-based training (VBT) for perioperative anaphylaxis management","primaryOutcome":"Not explicitly designated as a single primary outcome in the abstract; outcomes assessed included post-test knowledge scores, student satisfaction (5-point Likert scale), and performance in a simulated clinical scenario 1 week post-training evaluated via a technical skills checklist and the Anaesthesiologists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) scoring system","followUp":"1 week (scenario performance assessment conducted 1 week after training)","fundingSource":"Not reported"}
Key findings
The abstract reports that post-test knowledge scores were higher in the SBS group than in the VBT group (SBS: 80.[truncated]; exact means, standard deviations, between-group difference, confidence intervals, and p-values for the knowledge score comparison are not fully reported in the provided abstract). Satisfaction scores and simulated scenario performance results — including the technical checklist and ANTS scoring data — are referenced but their numerical values, effect sizes, confidence intervals, and p-values are not provided in the supplied abstract excerpt. No adverse events or harms data are reported, as this was an educational trial. No NNT or NNH is applicable or calculable from the available data.
Practice implications
This pilot RCT provides preliminary, hypothesis-generating evidence that scenario-based simulation may confer advantages over video-based training in post-test knowledge acquisition, student satisfaction, and simulated clinical performance among undergraduate anaesthesia students in perioperative anaphylaxis management. However, because only a truncated abstract was available for review, critical quantitative results — including exact effect sizes, confidence intervals, and p-values — cannot be verified or interpreted. Accordingly, the clinical importance and statistical robustness of the findings cannot be fully assessed. The study population consisted exclusively of fourth-year undergraduate students at a single Chinese university, limiting generalizability to postgraduate trainees, practising anaesthesiologists, or healthcare systems outside of China. The study does not establish whether simulation-based training translates to improved real-world patient outcomes, which remains a critical and as-yet-unanswered question in the simulation literature. Findings should be considered exploratory given the pilot design and small sample size. __LIMITATIONS__ 1. Pilot design with a small sample (n=84) at a single institution, limiting statistical power and generalizability. 2. Short follow-up of only 1 week; durability of knowledge retention and skill acquisition beyond this period is unknown. 3. All outcomes were assessed in a simulated or self-report (Likert satisfaction) context; no real-patient or patient-outcome data were collected. 4. Blinding of students to their training modality assignment is inherently impossible in educational RCTs (performance bias risk). 5. Assessor blinding for scenario performance evaluation is not described in the abstract. 6. Generalizability is restricted to undergraduate anaesthesia students in a single Chinese academic setting; findings may not apply to other learner levels, cultural contexts, or healthcare systems. 7. The abstract is truncated, preventing full appraisal of statistical analyses, effect sizes, and confidence intervals. 8. No long-term follow-up to determine whether simulation training reduces clinical errors or improves patient outcomes, consistent with the broader simulation literature. 9. Funding source is not reported, precluding assessment of potential conflicts of interest. __BOTTOM_LINE_CATEGORY__ promising_but_preliminary __BOTTOM_LINE__ This small pilot RCT suggests that scenario-based simulation may improve short-term post-test knowledge, satisfaction, and simulated scenario performance compared with video-based training for perioperative anaphylaxis education in undergraduate anaesthesia students. The findings are exploratory and cannot support changes to training curricula without replication in larger, more diverse cohorts with longer follow-up. Clinicians and educators should interpret these results as preliminary hypothesis-generating data rather than definitive evidence.