No difference in learning retention in manikin-based simulation based on role

We evaluated learning retention in interns exposed to simulation. It was hypothesized that learning would degrade after 6 months and there would be a difference in retention between interns who played a critical role versus those who did not.

A total of 23 groups of 5 to 9 interns underwent a cardiac scenario twice during 1 simulation experience and again 6 months later. We captured 69 recordings (23 before debrief at baseline [PrDV], 23 after debrief at baseline [PoDV], and 23 at 6-month follow-up [FUV]). Students were assigned different roles, including the critical role of "doctor" in a blinded, haphazard fashion. At 6-month follow-up, 12 interns who played the role of doctor initially were assigned that role again, while 11 interns who played noncritical roles initially were newly assigned to doctor. All videos of intern performance were scored independently and in a blinded fashion, by 3 judges using a 15-item check list.

Repeated-measures analysis of variance for interns completing all 3 time points indicated a significant difference between time points (F2,22 = 112, p = .00). Contrasts showed a statistically significant difference between PrDV and PoDV (p = .00), and PrDV and FUV (p = .00), but no difference between PoDV and FUV (p = .98). This was consistent with results including all data points. Checklist scores were more than double for PoDV recordings (16) and FUV (15), compared to PrDV recordings (6.6). Follow-up scores comparing old to new doctors showed no statistically significant difference (15.4 vs 15.2 respectively, t21 = 0.26, p = .80, d = .11).

Learning retention was maintained regardless of role.