# In-house designed simulation courses versus society-accredited designs by international societies: A comparative analysis

## TL;DR

This study compares in-house and society-accredited simulation courses in emergency medicine, finding each has unique strengths and limitations.

## Contribution

The study provides a comparative analysis of in-house versus society-accredited simulation courses in emergency medicine education.

## Key findings

- Society-accredited courses scored higher on guideline adherence and presenter competence.
- In-house courses excelled in content scope and communication.
- Participant background influenced ratings, and feedback suggested improvements like earlier material distribution.

## Abstract

Simulation-based medical education is increasingly important in postgraduate training, yet the comparative merits of in-house vs. society-accredited courses are still not well understood. This study examined these two approaches in three emergency medicine domains – prehospital, pediatric, and adult – to identify their respective strengths and potential limitations.

In a retrospective analysis, 1,263 participants from 57 sessions (2019–2023) evaluated six emergency medicine courses (three society-accredited, three in-house). A 25-item Likert-scale survey assessed aspects of course content, delivery, organization, and overall recommendation, alongside demographic questions and free-text comments. Mann-Whitney U tests and Cliff’s Delta were used for statistical comparisons.

Society-accredited courses generally scored higher on guideline adherence, presenter competence, and practical relevance, whereas in-house formats excelled in areas like content scope and communication. Participant specialty, workplace, and training stage influenced ratings. Free-text feedback praised hands-on learning and small-group design but called for earlier material distribution, better logistics, and clearer guidelines.

Both in-house and society-accredited SBME courses exhibit distinct strengths. Adopting best practices from both models, may guide a hybrid approach that optimizes SBME outcomes. However, reliance on self-reported data and a lack of controls for instructor competence or teaching style limit generalizability. Future research should include a broader sample, more rigorous content analysis, longitudinal follow-up, and detailed participant experience data to enhance the depth and applicability of findings.