The Effect of Simulation Wars on EM Residents’ Global Rating Scales and In-Training Examination Scores

Figures & data

Table 1 ITE and GRS Scores, Between Historical Control Group and Simulation Games Intervention Group (Cases)

Variable Name	Cases N(%)	Controls N(%)	p-value
	70 (55.1)	57 (44.9)
Sex			0.14
Women	23 (32.9)	26 (45.6)
Men	47 (67.1)	31 (54.4)
Race			0.35
White	41 (58.6)	38 (66.7)
Non White	29 (41.4)	19 (33.3)
Degree
MD	64 (91.4)	48 (84.2)	0.21
Non MD	6 (8.6)	9 (15.8)
University			0.09
US	68 (100)	54 (94.7)
No US	0	3 (5.3)
Previous Health Employment	55%	42%	0.31
ITE SCORES
YR1Score, mean (range)	71.7 (54–87)	71.6 (60–83)	0.99
YR1Percentage, mean (range)	0.56 (0.05–98)	0.51 (0.05–90)	0.41
YR2Score, mean (range)	76.9 (57–90)	78.5 (66–89)	0.24
YR2Percentage, mean (range)	0.56 (0.02–0.98)	0.57 (0.05–96)	0.74
YR3Score, mean (range)	78.7 (62–100)	77.4 (84–92)	0.55
GRS SCORES
GR1PC	1 (1.4)	0
AE	67 (97.1)	51 (98.1)
ME	1 (1.4)	1 (1.9)
BE			0.33
GR1MK	2 (2.9)	0
AE	66 (95.7)	51 (96.2)
ME	1 (1.4)	2 (3.8)
BE			0.37
GR1PBL	0	1 (1.9)
AE	68 (98.6)	50 (94.3)
ME	1 (1.4)	2 (3.8)
BE			<0.001
GR1COMM	0	10 (18.9)
AE	66 (95.7)	43 (81.1)
ME	3 (4.3)	0

Notes: Score=In-Training score, Percentage rank=percent of all residents in ACGME accredited EM residency programs, according to training level, who scored the same or lower than the resident of that year’s exam.

Abbreviations: GRS, global rating score; PC, patient care; MK, medical knowledge; PBP, practice-based performance; Comm, communication and interpersonal skills; Prof, professionalism; SBL, system-based practices; AE, above expectations; ME, Met expectations; BE, below expectations.

Figure 1 Comparison of ITE Scores from Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 in Residency.