Content uploaded by Claudio Pensieri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Claudio Pensieri on Aug 09, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Pensieri, C.; De Benedictis,
A.; De Micco, F.; Saccoccia, S.; Ivziku,
D.; Lommi, M.; Alloni, R. Continuing
Education through the Campus
Game: A Sustainable Gamification
Project to Improve Doctors’ and
Nurses’ Knowledge of Quality and
Clinical Risk Management. Healthcare
2023,11, 2236. https://doi.org/
10.3390/healthcare11162236
Academic Editors: Stefano D’Errico,
Michael Scott and Matteo Bolcato
Received: 16 June 2023
Revised: 11 July 2023
Accepted: 4 August 2023
Published: 9 August 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
healthcare
Case Report
Continuing Education through the Campus Game: A
Sustainable Gamification Project to Improve Doctors’ and
Nurses’ Knowledge of Quality and Clinical Risk Management
Claudio Pensieri 1, * , Anna De Benedictis 2,3 , Francesco De Micco 2,3 , Sabrina Saccoccia 2, Dhurata Ivziku 4,
Marzia Lommi 5and Rossana Alloni 2,3
1Department of Human Science, Libera UniversitàMaria S.S. Assunta, Via Traspontina 21, 00193 Rome, Italy
2Clinical Direction, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200,
00128 Rome, Italy; a.debenedictis@policlinicocampus.it (A.D.B.); f.demicco@policlinicocampus.it (F.D.M.);
s.saccoccia@policlinicocampus.it (S.S.); r.alloni@unicampus.it (R.A.)
3Department of Medicine and Surgery, UniversitàCampus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo 21,
00128 Rome, Italy
4Department of Healthcare Professions, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico,
Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, 00128 Rome, Italy; d.ivziku@policlinicocampus.it
5Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University Tor Vergata, Via Cracovia 50, 00133 Rome, Italy;
marzia.lommi@gmail.com
*Correspondence: c.pensieri1@lumsa.it; Tel.: +39-3397279049
Abstract:
The COVID-19 disease has dramatically changed lives worldwide, including education.
This is a challenge for traditional learning. In fact, the European Higher Education Area poses the
challenge of boosting the quality of teaching through active methodologies supported by digital
pedagogy. Gamification is one of these tools and it has considerable attention in the healthcare
literature. We aimed to create a game in the Campus Bio-Medico University Hospital Foundation
in order to offer continuing education on Quality and Clinical Risk procedures to our staff. The
2021 “Campus Game” (178 players) introduced the “Badge Challenge” (Team Building, Procedures,
and Security) and 73 questions. The leaderboard of every single match was posted in some of the
hospital’s strategic areas and also published online on the company intranet to ensure engagement
and competitiveness. Gamification has spontaneously promoted teamworking and a virtuous process
of multiprofessional education. We found that, during the Campus Game, there was a 4.9% increase
in access to the intranet page containing information on Quality and Patient Safety and an 8% increase
in access to the Hospital Policies and Procedures. In the near future, we wish to expand this game,
involving hospitals with similar types of activity and levels of attention to quality and safety issues,
and also to enhance the network of partners and the principles of Q&S management itself.
Keywords: adult education; healthcare; gamification; quality; risk management; medical education
1. Introduction
The COVID-19 disease has dramatically changed lives worldwide, including edu-
cation [
1
]. Social distancing to control the spread of COVID-19 created a challenge for
traditional learning [
2
]. We need to develop alternative methods of delivering education
and continuing education (CE) in healthcare to optimize learning [
3
]. Gamification is a tool
that has received considerable attention in the literature [4,5].
The European Higher Education Area poses the challenge of boosting the quality of
teaching through active methodologies supported by digital pedagogy [
6
]. However, the
reality is that, nowadays, the traditional model of master class teaching is still present and
continues to be developed [
7
], so we aimed to involve hospital staff in a more efficient and
funny way of learning.
Healthcare 2023,11, 2236. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11162236 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/healthcare
Healthcare 2023,11, 2236 2 of 10
This paper is a case history about a gamification experience used as an innovative
method for continuing education on the quality and clinical risk management training at a
University Hospital in Rome, Italy.
Gamification
In order to define “Gamification”, a review on Pubmed was performed using “Gam-
ification” as the main key term, including all articles from 2012 to January 2022 in all
languages, and excluding articles about clinical application (a computer program or piece
of software designed for a particular purpose that can be downloaded onto a mobile phone
or other mobile device), healthcare mobile application, rehabilitation, and patient applica-
tions. In total, 929 articles were found and 113 articles for “Gamification + Review” were
retrieved. The authors read the abstracts of the reviews, removing duplicates and off-topic
papers. Only 7 articles were found about gamification in medical/adult education
[2,8–13]
.
Gamification is a relatively new trend that focuses on applying game mechanics to non-
gaming contexts [
14
] in order to engage audiences and inject a bit of fun into learning
activities, as well as generate motivational and cognitive benefits [
8
]. Many fields, such
as business, marketing, and e-learning, have already taken advantage of the potential
of gamification. Likewise, the digital healthcare domain has also started to exploit this
emerging trend. Gamification is receiving worldwide attention across many sectors as a
powerful technique for promoting engagement and motivation [
15
–
20
]. It is necessary to
distinguish between the different ways the game can be applied in contexts “outside” of
the normal game:
•
Serious Game: according to Stokes [
21
], serious games are designed to entertain players
when they educate, train, or change their behavior. Serious games are developed
for educational purposes and provide both realism and the entertainment facet of
traditional games. This is a game with a purpose. It is a full-fledged game used for
non-entertainment purposes. It has all the elements of a real game, and will look and
feel like a real game, but has some defined purpose, outcome, or message that the
creators wish to get across to you. It includes many educational games, as long as they
have all the elements you would expect to see in a real game. Serious games have
been also used to enhance learning in medical contexts [22,23].
•
Alternative reality games (ARG): these connect the internet to the real world through
numerous web tools (blogs, e-mails, or mini-websites). They include a mysterious
story with clues that point to the real world (for example, monuments or hidden
objects in certain locations). An ARG was used in the USA to launch the HALO 2
videogame, by the Nine Inch Nails band to launch Year Zero, and for “AI: Artificial
Intelligence” and the “Batman The Dark Knight” films.
•
Advergame: this is made specifically to communicate advertising messages, develop
brand awareness, and generate website traffic. It is a free online or downloadable
game. It is a pull advertising tool that guarantees a higher level of involvement and
user exposure to the advertised brand than other advertising tools used on old and
new media. It is generally broadcast through the advertiser’s website, on its social
network pages, or is downloadable as an app for mobiles and other devices.
•Mobile applications (app): we can distinguish these between two types:
#
Medical apps (similar to medical devices) that monitor, control, or transform
data that represent a patient’s physiological parameters, and therefore form
an integral part of medical examinations (apps that measure blood pressure
or perform eye examinations, help patients to manage chronic diseases, or
calculate the correct dose of insulin for diabetics).
#
Health apps that work on a patient’s motivation for self care [
24
]. They can
give access to clinical information, which supports the sharing of images of
injuries, or they can comprise clinical diaries integrated with the healthcare
provider. Alternatively, health apps can provide information on the interac-
Healthcare 2023,11, 2236 3 of 10
tion between drugs or create reminders for taking medication, influencing a
patient’s lifestyle [25].
•
Gamification: the most commonly accepted definition amongst those proposed is
that of Sebastian Deterding, who stated that “Gamification is the use of game design
elements in non-game contexts” [
26
]. Thus, rather than creating immersive, fully
fledged games as in “serious games”, gamification is intended to affect users’ behavior
and motivation by the means of experiences reminiscent of games [
27
]. Conceived
in the digital media industry, gamification only began to be adopted on a large scale
in the second half of 2010 [
26
]. In fact, its first documented use dates back to 2008,
under the term “funware”, which was coined by Gabe Zichermann [
20
]. Gamification
appeals to younger generations who are comfortable with smartphones, tablets, and
other technology [28].
In our hospital, there are many employees born after 1997 and they are part of the
so-called “Generation Z” (or Gen Z). This name refers to “digital natives” born in devel-
oped countries, who are currently the largest generational group of nurses, young doctors,
and students of medicine [
2
]. Moreover, we have to keep in mind that they have never
experienced life without the Internet and are constantly adapting to new technology [
29
].
Gen Z members have different motivations, learning styles, and skill sets compared to
previous generations [
30
]. Gen Z learners frequently interact in the digital world and favor
online learning [
31
]. They are anti-lecture and prefer to learn by solving real-world prob-
lems [
29
]. This could constitute a challenge if educators have not incorporated technology
into their teaching style. Educators need to provide an array of innovative learning meth-
ods using various technological platforms to keep Gen Z learners engaged, and the use of
digital gamification could be particularly beneficial to these digital natives to enhance their
learning outcomes. Therefore, we decided to follow the gamification rules in our learning
organization, using digital technology in order to offer to our staff a tool for Continuing
Education on Quality and Clinical Risk procedures. In our Campus Game, we used large
companies’ most-used methodologies (they used them to achieve the most varied business
objectives: increase revenue, customer loyalty, and motivate the sales force, etc.):
•
Points: assigning points to teams (7–12 employees) can motivate them to continue
using a product or perform a certain action until they reach a more advanced level.
These are generally used to subsequently obtain virtual or real goods.
•
Badges: these are simple virtual emblems that demonstrate a certain ability of the
user to perform something. They are used to make the user feel important and skilled
and they strengthen their connection with the brand. They are one of the most-used
gamification mechanics.
•
Leaderboards: these are very useful in order to create competition between users. In
this way, they are encouraged to use the service, thus spending more time within it,
enabling them to compete with other people and obtain other new rewards in order to
satisfy their final desire: to be at the top of the ranking.
Evidence has shown that a commitment-based, intrinsically motivated approach to
change is more successful and sustained over time than a compliance-based (e.g., man-
dated) approach [
32
]. Gamification engages the user, provides a level of enjoyment, and
incentivizes the learner to use critical thinking skills. However, the use of gamification
(the application of game design and elements) as a clinical engagement strategy in health
quality improvement initiatives is less explored [33].
2. Materials and Methods
Staff recruitment: in the FPUCBM hospital, we have 3 annual initiatives that encourage
our staff to participate in continuous improvement processes:
1.
Quality Award: every year, the best 3 quality and safety projects from any department
are awarded;
Healthcare 2023,11, 2236 4 of 10
2.
Best monthly incident reporting: every month, the best incident reporting made by
any one of the hospital’s staff is awarded;
3.
Campus Game: every year, we open the Campus Game to hospital staff (MDs and
RNs, but also administrative staff, biologists, and pharmacologists, etc.), so everyone
can play for free. The only enrollment criteria is to have a contract with our hospital.
In order to make the game sustainable, both economically and in terms of the use of
consumable materials, we decided not to use paper and chose to use mobile phones. This
led us to save costs in terms of sustainability, because: we did not use paper or company
PCs and we did not use our classrooms that we usually use for traditional training (savings
in electricity, heating, and time taken away from clinical care practice, etc.). We decided
to use Google Forms for this game, because it is free and very versatile; moreover, our
hospital uses the employee office suite, so data are secure within the organization. The
enrollment criteria for the teams were: min. 3 and max. 9 people; we asked our staff to
create multidisciplinary teams in order to increase corporate team building, even between
different professions. The players received 3 multiple choice questions every Monday at
10.00 a.m. They had time to answer until 10.00 a.m. on Wednesday (48 h was necessary,
taking into account the shifts of the health personnel). On Wednesday, after we closed the
online questionnaire, we sent the correct answers to all the participants in order to ensure
training, even for those who had not had the opportunity to answer.
The average responses of all the team members formed the final team’s score. Each
match had 3 questions, from a minimum of 6 pt. to a maximum of 10 pt. per team, except
the final match, which had 10 questions (instead of 3) for a total of 20 pts. We chose to
give more points at the end in order to ensure the participation of teams that thought that,
“mathematically”, they could not win (and therefore stop playing). The leaderboard of
every single match was posted in some of the hospital’s strategic areas, near devices to
stamp attendance (presence), near the café, near the self-service restaurant, and in the locker
rooms. They were also published online on the company intranet to ensure engagement
and competitiveness. Descriptive statistics of the means, frequencies, and percentages of
the sample’s demographic characteristics and items were performed. We used the Microsoft
Excel formula in order to do obtain these data.
Novelties
Compared to the 2 previous editions, in 2021, we introduced three “BADGE CHAL-
LENGE” (“Team Building”, “Procedures”, and “Safety”). Each badge granted the team
10 points. The tournament was divided into two rounds (like Italian football tournaments).
The “first round” began in March 2021 and included 13 weeks + 2 badges, and it ended
before the summer. The “second round” began after the summer in September 2021 and in-
cluded 9 weeks + 1 badge, ending in November 2021. Thus, our staff answered 73 questions
in 22 matches
Every question was created by specialists from different areas and were divided as
follows (Table 1):
Table 1. Number of questions per area.
AREAS Tot.
Occupational Health and Safety 22
Infection Control 13
Privacy 10
Public Relations 5
Human Resources 2
Hospital Social Service 4
Quality and Clinical Risk Management 17
Tot 73
Healthcare 2023,11, 2236 5 of 10
Some of these questions were:
a.
A patient’s family members report that they want to start the path toward a nursing
home. What are you doing?
b.
A patient you have been treating for a long time sends you an email or a WhatsApp
message with the following text: “Doctor, I have a problem, since I’ve been taking
metformin, with the dosage you gave me, I feel dizzy, can I reduce it to half the
dosage?”
c. In our Polyclinic, who monitors the Point of Care Testing?
d. You are making a handover communication. What method do you use?
e. What are the areas that make up the CLABSI prevention bundle?
f.
What should the Data Controller do in the event of a personal data breach that may
have had a significant impact on the personal data they process? Who can report an
event (near-miss, sentinel event, and incident) on the company intranet?
g. Where can you find how many people fell during the last quarter in our hospital?
Finally, we administered an assessment test that the participants filled out during the
first week and last week.
We decided to use a 0 to 10 scale rating and the Likert Scale. We used the first one in
order to obtain a judgment of quality (with 11 rating options, the 0-to-10 scale gave us a true
average rating. According to our opinion, we think it is important to offer a true “average”
option so respondents could indicate when something was neither exceptional nor poor).
Than, we used the Likert scale in order to the evaluate players’ attitudes, opinions, and
perceptions.
Those questions were not from a validated questionnaire, but we built them specifically
for this Campus Game.
We used this in order to obtain data on “how much” the game helped people to acquire
new information, theoretical knowledge, or improved their technical–professional skills.
3. Results
There were 178 players (118 females and 60 males) of this Campus Game. Females
were almost double that of males, the reason for this probably being that, in our hospital,
there are more female employees than males, but we did not investigate this aspect.
The roles of the players were: 154 healthcare workers (28 senior consultants/registrars,
60 residents, and 66 nurses), 17 allied health professionals (4 healthcare technicians, 4 biolo-
gists, 2 physical therapists, and 7 social health workers), 3 pharmacists, and 4 administrative
support workers. The participants were divided into 21 multidisciplinary teams (Table 2,
Figure 1)
Table 2. Campus Game players by role.
Teaching Hospital Participants by Role n (%)
Healthcare Workers (HWs)
MD (Senior consultants/Registrars) 28 (15.7)
Residents 60 (33.7)
Nurses 66 (37)
Allied Health Professionals
(AHPs)
Healthcare technicians 4 (2.3)
Biologists 4 (2.3)
Physical therapists 2 (1.1)
Social health workers 7 (3.9)
Pharmacists 3 (1.7)
Administrative Support Workers (ASWs) 4 (2.3)
Total 178 (100)
Healthcare 2023,11, 2236 6 of 10
Healthcare 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 10
Total 178 (100)
Figure 1. Campus Game players by role.
The hospital intranet has web pages about quality and patient safety, hospital
policies, and procedures, as well as a summary of the Joint Commission International
accreditation standards manual for hospitals [34]. We compared the access to the intranet
pages when the Campus Game was in progress versus when it was not in progress.
The Campus Game started in March 2021 and ended in November 2021, so we
compared the percentage of access to the company intranet web pages before the game
(January–February 2021) and during the game (March–November 2021). The data showed
that, when the Campus Game was ongoing, there was an increase in access to the intranet
web pages compared to when the Campus Game was not in progress: a 4.9% increase in
access to the intranet page concerning Quality and Patient Safety compared to 0.3%; an
8% increase in access to the intranet page containing information on Hospital Policies and
Procedures compared to 0.8%; and a 17.3% increase in access to the page with a summary
of the JCI Accreditation Standards manual for hospitals compared to 0.3% (Table 3).
Table 3. Hospital intranet access.
Quality and Patient Safety Hospital Policies and Procedures JCI Accreditation Standards for Hospitals (Summary)
Campus
Game in progress
11 March
2021
16 November
2021
Change
(%)
11 March
2021
16 November
2021
Change
(%)
11 March
2021
16 November
2021
Change
(%)
46.344 48.625
+2.281
(4.9) 45.236 48.864
+3.628
(8.0) 520 610
+90
(17.3)
Campus
Game not in progress
14 January
2021
14 February
2021
Change
(%)
14 January
2021
14 February
2021
Change
(%)
14 January
2021
14 February
2021
Change
(%)
48.625 48.791
+166
(0.3) 48.864 49.280
+416
(0.8) 610 612
+2
(0.3)
At the end of the game, the players answered the assessment form we described in
the Methods paragraph.
To the question “Did you find Campus Game 2021 useful to increase your knowledge
in the field of Quality and Patient Safety?”, the average score of the answers was 9.2 (rating
scale: 0 = poor; 10 = excellent). The second question was: “Did you find interesting the
Gamification system for this training activity?”, and the average score of the answers was
4.8 (rating scale: 0 = poor; 5 = excellent); The third question was: “Did you find fun use the
Campus Game for your Continuing Education?”, and the average score of the answers
was 4.8 (rating scale: 0 = poor; 5 = excellent) (Table 4).
15.70%
2.30%
9.60%
1.70%
33.70%
37%
MD
ASWs
AHPs
Pharmacists
Residents
Nurses
Figure 1. Campus Game players by role.
The hospital intranet has web pages about quality and patient safety, hospital policies,
and procedures, as well as a summary of the Joint Commission International accreditation
standards manual for hospitals [
34
]. We compared the access to the intranet pages when
the Campus Game was in progress versus when it was not in progress.
The Campus Game started in March 2021 and ended in November 2021, so we com-
pared the percentage of access to the company intranet web pages before the game (January–
February 2021) and during the game (March–November 2021). The data showed that, when
the Campus Game was ongoing, there was an increase in access to the intranet web pages
compared to when the Campus Game was not in progress: a 4.9% increase in access to the
intranet page concerning Quality and Patient Safety compared to 0.3%; an 8% increase in
access to the intranet page containing information on Hospital Policies and Procedures
compared to 0.8%; and a 17.3% increase in access to the page with a summary of the JCI
Accreditation Standards manual for hospitals compared to 0.3% (Table 3).
Table 3. Hospital intranet access.
Quality and Patient Safety Hospital Policies and Procedures JCI Accreditation Standards for
Hospitals (Summary)
Campus
Game in
progress
11 March
2021 16 November
2021
Change
(%)
11 March
2021 16 November
2021
Change
(%)
11 March
2021 16 November
2021
Change
(%)
46.344 48.625 +2.281
(4.9) 45.236 48.864 +3.628
(8.0) 520 610 +90
(17.3)
Campus
Game not
in progress
14 January
2021 14 February
2021
Change
(%)
14 January
2021 14 February
2021
Change
(%)
14 January
2021 14 February
2021
Change
(%)
48.625 48.791 +166
(0.3) 48.864 49.280 +416
(0.8) 610 612 +2
(0.3)
At the end of the game, the players answered the assessment form we described in the
Methods paragraph.
To the question “Did you find Campus Game 2021 useful to increase your knowledge
in the field of Quality and Patient Safety?”, the average score of the answers was 9.2 (rating
scale: 0 = poor; 10 = excellent). The second question was: “Did you find interesting the
Gamification system for this training activity?”, and the average score of the answers was
4.8 (rating scale: 0 = poor; 5 = excellent); The third question was: “Did you find fun use the
Campus Game for your Continuing Education?”, and the average score of the answers was
4.8 (rating scale: 0 = poor; 5 = excellent) (Table 4).
Healthcare 2023,11, 2236 7 of 10
Table 4. Final Campus Game 2021 Assessment.
Did you find the Campus Game 2021 useful for increasing your knowledge
in the field of Quality and Patient Safety?
Min. 0–Max. 10
Average
9.2
Did you find the Gamification system interesting for this training activity?
Min. 0–Max. 5
Average
4.8
Did you find the use of the Campus Game fun for your Continuing
Education?
Min. 0–Max. 5
Average
4.8
4. Discussion
From the assessment questionnaires, it emerged that “gamification” (in its most in-
trinsic meaning) influenced and developed behavior centered on motivation and healthy
competition, encouraging a sustainable “challenge” that was adaptable to the availability
of time and resources of individual players.
The first three teams with the highest scores were awarded during the “Safety and
Quality Day” in December 2021 in front of all the hospital’s staff. The prize consisted
of money that they could spend on professional training. A team was also awarded for
showing great commitment to finding answers. They had formally contested some answers,
even with a literature search to support their reasons.
This was important for us, because it meant that we achieved the purpose of the
game, which was not only “to have fun”, but “to train”, also through a spontaneous
search for information. Above all, we wanted to create “engagement”. Thus, we can
say that Gamification facilitated and promoted familiarity in acquiring information on
company policies and procedures, thereby possibly improving the quality and safety of
care. The involved players reported the usefulness of the Campus Game for the purposes
of functional and motivational learning, with a view of improvement on the one hand and
the motivation and performance of staff on the other.
In fact, as Alsawier [
35
] said: “players have greater motivation to learn, participate
and collaborate” with interest and fun experienced when carrying out this training activity,
which reflects what Colli [
36
] said: “you can also work in a fun way, enhancing the
expressive component
. . .
”. On the other hand, knowledge and skills about company
policies and procedures increased and this led to active participation and engagement with
corporate objectives.
The data showed that one of the results of the Campus Game was the achievement
of engagement with the use of digital tools. Teams were created with Generation Z (new
digital) and people of the Net generation [
37
] and those from Generation X, who are
more reluctant about digitization, overcoming the prejudice of traditional learning that
has the limit of not falling within the sustainable development goals of the 2030 Agenda.
Koulopoulos [
38
] said “it is recognized that Generation Z was born in a historical period in
which natural resources are disappearing”. The economic crisis is not yet over and jobs
are so scarce that Jeremy Finch [
39
], on the online business magazine Fast Company, said:
“They only have the weight of saving the world and fixing our past mistakes on their small
shoulders”. Generation Z has a great propensity for collaboration, sharing work aspects
with a pragmatic sense of play with the goal of quick problem solving. At the same time,
Gamification spontaneously promoted the start of a virtuous process of multi-professional
education. In fact, a fundamental point is given by the social aspect that it entails: it is the
“community” [40] that is created that makes the success of this type of approach possible.
Most of the Campus Game’s teams were composed of multi-professional teams in
which doctors, nurses, technicians, administrative staff, and physiotherapists, etc. worked
and “studied” together in order to achieve the same goal (that was to answer questions), by
sharing their knowledge and skills. We want to underline the high number of participants
Healthcare 2023,11, 2236 8 of 10
despite the complexity and difficulties brought about due to the pandemic emergency.
Gamification proved to be a precious resource and important educational tool, even in this
extraordinary situation. Many professionals found in the “game” and healthy competition
a diversion and tool for aggregation and sharing, which favored not only the growth of
knowledge and skills, but also the teamworking ability and the ability to ask for help, in
order to grow a critical mindset.
This is why we think that Gamification can be an “ecological educational resource”, a
“game” that can favor the quality of personal and working life. After the final assessment
questionnaire, some players suggested to us to introduce explanations of wrong answers,
the performance of individual players in the teams, and shortening the time duration of
the game.
Some limitations of our project are:
1.
It helped to generate interest, facilitate the location of professionally sensitive informa-
tion and documentation, and stimulate and generate interest in learning, but this kind
of Game did not guarantee learning (the use or putting into practice of the content).
Thus, in the fourth edition, we started to verify in real life some generated changes,
such as “where people and patients have to go in case of fire”, making players leave
the hospital and take photos, or using the black box in order to test their adherence to
hand hygiene rules, etc.
2.
We do not know if the people that accessed the company intranet studied, internalized,
or put into practice the procedures and guidelines, etc., that they found. The only
way we could verify this was when there was a dispute that a team made about the
correct answers.. They studied the literature and, in some cases, did not agree with
the answer. Then, after the explanations of the expert, they understood that they were
wrong.
5. Conclusions
The permanent training of adult professionals is a constant challenge: everyone is
convinced that it is necessary to update and resume notions and principles already known,
but very few people do this in a constant and organized way. Even the imposition of specific
levels of training has, so far, not achieved the desired results. However, the traditional
paradigm of patient safety has been modified by the introduction of new technologies in
healthcare [
41
], and there is need to emphasize the bio-social connections arising from
the relationships between health conditions and socio-economic, political, and cultural
determinants [
42
]. To cope with the needs to maintain a good level of knowledge and the
application of quality and safety standards of care, our experience with the Campus Game
was completely satisfactory, both in terms of participation and content acquisition. In the
near future, we wish to expand this game, involving other hospitals with similar types of
clinical activity and levels of attention to quality and safety issues, and also to share the
principles of Q&S management.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, C.P.; methodology, F.D.M.; formal analysis, A.D.B. and
D.I.; resources, S.S.; writing—original draft preparation C.P.; writing—review and editing, M.L.
review; R.A.; supervision, R.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
Ethical review and approval for the study was not required
in accordance with national legislation: Decreto Legislativo 14 May 2019, n. 52.
Informed Consent Statement:
Patient consent was waived due to the fact that all players were part
of Hospital Staff and this case study was a training program for them.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Healthcare 2023,11, 2236 9 of 10
References
1.
Schneider, S.L.; Council, M.L. Distance learning in the era of COVID-19. Arch. Dermatol. Res.
2021
,313, 389–390. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
2.
Min, A.; Min, H.; Kimm, S. Effectiveness of serious games in nurse education: A systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today
2022
,108,
105178. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Almarzooq, Z.I.; Lopes, M.; Kochar, A. Virtual learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A disruptive technology in graduate
medical education. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020,75, 2635–2638. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Lopes, R.P. Gamification as a learning tool. Int. J. Dev. Educ. Psychol. INFAD Rev. Psicol. 2014,1, 565–574565. [CrossRef]
5.
Koivisto, J.; Hamari, J. The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. Int. J. Inf. Manag.
2019
,
45, 191–210, ISSN 0268-4012. [CrossRef]
6.
McAleese, M. Report to the European Commission on New Modes of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Insight for Teachers; Publi-
cations Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2014. Available online: https://hub.teachingandlearning.ie/resource/report-
to-the-european-commission-on-new-modes-of-learning-and-teaching-in-higher-education-insight-for-teachers/ (accessed on 5
August 2022).
7.
López-Martínez, A.; Meroño, L.; Cánovas-López, M.; García-de-Alcaraz, A.; Martínez-Aranda, L.M. Using Gamified Strategies in
Higher Education: Relationship between Intrinsic Motivation and Contextual Variables. Sustainability
2022
,14, 11014. [CrossRef]
8.
Sardi, L.; Idri, A.; Fernandez-Aleman, J.L. A systematic review of gamification in e-Health. J. Biomed. Inform.
2017
,71, 31–48.
[CrossRef]
9.
Morris, J.B.; Croker, S.; Zimmerman, C.; Gil, D.; Roming, C. Gaming science: The “Gamification” of scientific thinking. Front.
Psychol. 2013,4, 607. [CrossRef]
10.
Van Gaalen, A.E.J.; Brouwer, J.; Schönrock-Adema, J.; Bouwkamp-Timmer, T.; Jaarsma, A.D.C.; Georgiadis, J.R. Gamification of
health professions education: A systematic review. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 2020,26, 683–711. [CrossRef]
11.
Sánchez Prieto, G.A.; Martín Rodrigo, M.J.; Rua Vieites, A. Competitive Debate as Innovation in Gamification and Training for
Adult Learners: A Conceptual Analysis. Front. Psychol. 2021,12, 666871. [CrossRef]
12.
Nieto-Escamez, F.A.; Roldán-Tapia, M.D. Gamification as Online Teaching Strategy during COVID-19: A Mini-Review. Front.
Psychol. 2021,12, 648552. [CrossRef]
13.
Sarker, U.; Kanuka, H.; Norris, C.; Raymond, C.; Yonge, O.; Davidson, S. Gamification in nursing literature: An integrative review.
Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh. 2021,18, 20200081. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. In
Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, Tampere,
Finland, 28–30 September 2011.
15.
Blohm, I.; Leimeister, J.M. Design of IT-based enhancing services for motivational support and behavioral change. Bus. Inf. Syst.
Eng. 2013,55, 275–278. [CrossRef]
16. Burke, B. Gamify: How Gamification Motivates People to Do Extraordinary Things; Bibliometion, Inc.: Brookline, MA, USA, 2014.
17.
Dominguez, A.; Saenz-de-Navarrete, J.; de-Marcos, L.; Fernandez-Sanz, L.; Pages, C. Gamifying learning experiences: Practical
implications and outcomes. Comput. Educ. 2013,63, 380–392. [CrossRef]
18.
Sheth, S.; Bell, J.; Kaiser, G. Increasing Student Engagement in Software Engineering with Gamification; Department of Computer
Science, Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
19. Insley, V.; Nunan, D. Gamification and the online retail experience. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2014,42, 340–351. [CrossRef]
20.
Zichermann, G.; Linder, J. The Gamification Revolution: How Leaders Leverage Game Mechanics to Crush the Competition; McGraw Hill
Education: East Windsor, NJ, USA, 2013; ISBN 9780071808316.
21. Stokes, B. Videogames have changed: Time to consider ‘serious games’? Dev. Educ. J. 2005,11, 12–14.
22.
Evans, K.H.; Daines, W.; Tsui, J.; Strehlow, M.; Maggio, P.; Shieh, L. Septris: A novel, mobile, online simulation game that
improves sepsis recognition and management. Acad. Med. 2015,90, 180–184. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23.
Graafland, M.; Schraagen, J.M.; Schijven, M.P. Systematic review of serious games for medical education and surgical skills
training. Br. J. Surg. 2012,99, 1322–1330. [CrossRef]
24.
Lin, R.J.; Ramakrishnan, S.; Chang, H.; Spraragen, S.; Zhu, X. Designing a web-based behavior motivation tool for healthcare
compliance. Hum. Factor Ergon. Man. 2013,23, 58–67. [CrossRef]
25.
King, D.; Greaves, F.; Exeter, C.; Darzi, A. ‘Gamification’: Influencing health behaviours with games. J. Roy. Soc. Med.
2013
,106,
76–78. [CrossRef]
26.
Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R. Gamification: Toward a definition. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011; pp. 12–15.
27.
Hamari, J.; Koivisto, J. Social motivations to use gamification: An empirical study of gamifying exercise. In Proceedings of the
21st European Conference on Information Systems, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 5–8 June 2013.
28.
Brull, S.; Finlayson, S.; Kostelec, T.; MacDonald, R.; Krenzischeck, D. Using Gamification to Improve Productivity and Increase
Knowledge Retention during Orientation. J. Nurs. Adm. 2017,47, 448–453. [CrossRef]
29. Williams, C.A. Nurse educators meet your new students: Generation Z. Nurse Educ. 2019,44, 59–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Seemiller, C.; Grace, M. Generation Z Goes to College; Wiley: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2016; ISBN 1119143454.
Healthcare 2023,11, 2236 10 of 10
31.
Chunta, K.; Shellenbarger, T.; Chicca, J. Generation Z students in the online environment: Strategies for nurse educators. Nurse
Educ. 2020,46, 87–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32.
Bevan, H.; Fairman, S. The New Era of Thinking and Practice in Change and Transformation: A Call to Action for Leaders of
Health and Care. National Health Service Improving Quality Website. 2014. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/313478861_The_new_era_of_thinking_and_practice_in_change_and_transformation_Improving_Quality_NHS (ac-
cessed on 22 August 2022).
33.
McKeown, S.; Krause, C.; Shergill, M.; Siu, A.; Sweet, D. Gamification as a strategy to engage and motivate clinicians to improve
care. Healthcare Manag. Forum 2016,29, 67–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
Joint Commission International. Accreditation Standards for Hospitals, 7th ed.; Joint Commission International: Oakbrook Terrace,
IL, USA, 2021; ISBN 9781635851489.
35. Alsawaier, R.S. The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 2018,35, 56–79. [CrossRef]
36.
Colli, F.; Meneghetti, C.; Viola, F. Giocarsi: Gaming e Gamification in Contesti Professionali; Hogrefe: Firenze, Italy, 2021;
ISBN 8898542658.
37. Pensieri, C. Game Therapy; Universitalia: Rome, Italy, 2013; ISBN 8865075236.
38.
Koulopoulos, T.; Keldsen, D. The Gen Z Effect: The Six Forces Shaping the Future of Business; Routledge: London, UK, 2014;
ISBN 9781629560311.
39.
Finch, J. What Is Generation Z, and What Does It Want? Fast Company [online], 2015. Available online: https://www.fastcompany.
com/3045317/what-is-generation-z-and-what-doesit-want (accessed on 22 August 2022).
40. Available online: www.24consulting.it/gamification-cose-e-a-cosa-serve (accessed on 26 August 2022).
41.
De Micco, F.; Fineschi, V.; Banfi, G.; Frati, P.; Oliva, A.; Travaini, G.V.; Picozzi, M.; Curcio, G.; Pecchia, L.; Petitti, T.; et al. From
COVID-19 Pandemic to Patient Safety: A New “Spring” for Telemedicine or a Boomerang Effect? Front. Med.
2022
,15, 901788.
[CrossRef]
42.
De Micco, F.; De Benedictis, A.; Fineschi, V.; Frati, P.; Ciccozzi, M.; Pecchia, L.; Alloni, R.; Petrosillo, N.; Filippi, S.; Ghilardi, G.;
et al. From Syndemic Lesson after COVID-19 Pandemic to a “Systemic Clinical Risk Management” Proposal in the Perspective of
the Ethics of Job Well Done. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,19, 15. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
