Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Traditional Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) courses are evaluated using written multiple-choice tests. High-fidelity simulation is a widely used adjunct to didactic content, and has been used in many specialties as a training resource as well as an evaluative tool. There are no data to our knowledge that compare simulation examination scores with written test scores for ACLS courses. OBJECTIVE: To compare and correlate a novel high-fidelity simulation-based evaluation with traditional written testing for senior medical students in an ACLS course. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study to determine the correlation between simulation-based evaluation and traditional written testing in a medical school simulation center. Students were tested on a standard acute coronary syndrome/ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest scenario. Our primary outcome measure was correlation of exam results for 19 volunteer fourth-year medical students after a 32-hour ACLS-based Resuscitation Boot Camp course. Our secondary outcome was comparison of simulation-based vs. written outcome scores. RESULTS: The composite average score on the written evaluation was substantially higher (93.6%) than the simulation performance score (81.3%, absolute difference 12.3%, 95% CI [10.6-14.0%], p<0.00005). We found a statistically significant moderate correlation between simulation scenario test performance and traditional written testing (Pearson r=0.48, p=0.04), validating the new evaluation method. CONCLUSION: Simulation-based ACLS evaluation methods correlate with traditional written testing and demonstrate resuscitation knowledge and skills. Simulation may be a more discriminating and challenging testing method, as students scored higher on written evaluation methods compared to simulation.