IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v56y2025i2p237-254.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cardiac Crisis Simulations: Traditional vs. Escape Room Learning for Nursing Students

Author

Listed:
  • Shannon S. Olivieri
  • Kimberly Cardaci Macario
  • Renz Nikka De Gula
  • Stephanie Zimmerman
  • David Brocker

Abstract

Background To meet the diverse learning needs of nursing students, educators must develop teaching strategies that increase confidence and satisfaction with learning, as well as promote critical thinking and clinical judgment. Aim This study aimed to compare the impact of Traditional Simulation (TS) learning versus Escape Room Simulation (ERS) learning on nursing students’ satisfaction and self-confidence in caring for a patient experiencing an acute cardiac event. It was hypothesized that the escape room simulation would provide similar or improved outcomes in terms of satisfaction and self-confidence as compared to traditional simulation. Methods In this experimental design study, students’ self-reported responses to the Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning (SSSCL) survey were compared between the simulation (n = 20) and escape room (n = 18) cohorts in a pre-licensure baccalaureate nursing program. Results There was no significant difference in satisfaction with current learning and self-confidence in learning between the simulation groups and the escape room groups. Conclusion The findings suggest that escape room simulation-based education can be used in lieu of traditional simulation without compromising students’ confidence and satisfaction with learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Shannon S. Olivieri & Kimberly Cardaci Macario & Renz Nikka De Gula & Stephanie Zimmerman & David Brocker, 2025. "Cardiac Crisis Simulations: Traditional vs. Escape Room Learning for Nursing Students," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 56(2), pages 237-254, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:56:y:2025:i:2:p:237-254
    DOI: 10.1177/10468781251316889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10468781251316889
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10468781251316889?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:56:y:2025:i:2:p:237-254. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.