Escaping Error: A Comparison of Simulation Approaches for Teaching Interprofessional QI and Patient Safety to Student Teams

Medical errors are a significant problem, with 10% to 20% of all patients experiencing some form of harm during medical care. While communication failures across health professions are cited as a factor in the majority of cases, health professionals rarely learn about medical errors interprofessionally. We address this gap in a required IPE course for over 425 learners each year (MD, BSN, PharmD) divided into 88 teams. Adding simulation to the course was a priority, but we wanted to determine whether a low-resource approach would have the same impact as live simulation.Methods/methodology: We used a quasi-experimental approach to test three simulation modalities using the same clinical scenario: an ICU patient with meningitis moving to a general medical floor in a transfer riddled with errors and patient safety risks. Each modality was designed as an “escape room” to gamify the experience, and teams were divided into three arms. Arm 1 completed a static digital escape room; Arm 2 completed an interactive video escape room; Arm 3 completed a live simulation with a standardized patient. We used knowledge tests, an attitudinal survey, and qualitative comments to assess outcomes and compare approaches. Some students completed a second modality and provided feedback for extra credit.Results: Students showed significant positive growth in knowledge and attitudes about patient safety, and there were no differences across arms. There was consensus that video simulation provided the most immersive and realistic learning experience, closely followed by live simulation for its interactive nature. The static digital approach was valued for its flexibility but critiqued for lacking sufficient context. Students who completed the interactive video after completing the static module tended to prefer the interactive video.Conclusions, implications, and curiosities: Each simulation format had its advantages and drawbacks, but in this sample it was clear that low-resource options were just as effective as live simulation.