Table 2.
Comparison of results for posttest survey responses by week
| Survey item | April 23 (N = 27) | May 7 (N = 19) | Overall (N = 46) | P | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Median | Mean (SD) | Median | Mean (SD) | Median | ||
| I thought the scenario was a realistic representation of a real-life situation | 6.74 (2.77) | 8 | 8.05 (2.20) | 8 | 7.28 (2.61) | 8 | 0.088 |
| I felt engaged during the simulation | 6.15 (2.82) | 7 | 8.16 (2.5) | 9 | 6.98 (2.85) | 8 | 0.008 |
| This simulation session stimulated critical thinking | 7.93 (1.86) | 9 | 9.11 (1.94) | 10 | 8.41 (1.96) | 9 | 0.003 |
| I felt at ease in speaking up using this mode of simulation | 5.52 (2.98) | 5 | 7 (2.94) | 8 | 6.13 (3.02) | 7 | 0.098 |
| The simulation case scenario was challenging | 8 (1.39) | 8 | 8.89 (1.24) | 9 | 8.37 (1.39) | 8.5 | 0.030 |
| I had difficulty understanding the clinical flow of the case* | 5.74 (2.98) | 7 | 5.32 (3.53) | 5 | 5.57 (3.19) | 5.5 | 0.762 |
| The principles I learned in this scenario can be applied in a real OR setting | 9 (1.36) | 10 | 9.53 (0.90) | 10 | 9.22 (1.21) | 10 | 0.171 |
| The facilitation and debriefing allowed adequate reflection and learning | 7.85 (2.23) | 8 | 9.11 (1.29) | 10 | 8.37 (1.98) | 9 | 0.044 |
| I could see the simulation room and activities clearly | 6.19 (2.53) | 6 | 7.11 (2.66) | 7 | 6.57 (2.60) | 7 | 0.180 |
| I could hear the facilitator and other participants clearly | 5.22 (3.14) | 6 | 6.63 (2.89) | 7 | 5.8 (3.09) | 6.5 | 0.123 |
| I felt distracted by technology or things going on in my viewing room* | 5.22 (3.38) | 4 | 6.47 (3.34) | 8 | 5.74 (3.38) | 5 | 0.274 |
| Compared to learning live in the simulation center, this was a reasonable substitution | 5.63 (2.96) | 6 | 7.58 (3.36) | 9 | 6.43 (3.24) | 7 | 0.024 |
p values are based on Mann-Whitney U test. The scale is from strongly disagree = 0 to strongly agree = 10
*Indicates an item that was reversed so that a greater value reflects a more positive response
OR operating room, SD standard deviation