A daily clinical game becomes a useful teaching resource when the facilitator knows what they want learners to explain afterwards. The objective might be identifying a diagnostic discriminator, choosing the immediate priority, improving a proposed plan or explaining a relationship between concepts. Choosing the game comes after choosing that objective.
This updated guide broadens the original diagnosis-game approach to include rounds, stat and clinical connections. It describes ways to use the games in teaching, not a built-in classroom mode. A shared screen, a deliberately selected edition and a discussion can be sufficient; the teaching comes from what participants do with the material rather than a new group dashboard.
Start with one observable learning objective
Replace "improve clinical reasoning" with something a participant can demonstrate during the session. For example: explain which new clue changed the leading diagnosis, distinguish the next action from a later action, or justify why four terms belong together.
An objective this specific helps the facilitator decide what to ask and when to stop. It also avoids treating a correct result as evidence that every underlying skill has been demonstrated.
The three formats offer different starting points:
| Teaching objective | A suitable starting activity | A useful debrief question |
|---|---|---|
| Explain how new information changes an interpretation | A rounds case | Which clue changed your view, and why? |
| Discuss priorities, next steps or plan review | A stat scene | What makes this action preferable in the stated circumstances? |
| Explain a relationship between clinical concepts | A clinical connections group | What connects these terms beyond recognising the label? |
These are suggested matches, not exclusive assignments. The same learner may benefit from each format at different times.
Prepare the edition before the teaching session
Choose an archived challenge when you need predictable content. Read the full case or puzzle, explanation and linked sources before the session. Check that its scope and difficulty fit the learners and that you can explain the particular distinction you intend to discuss.
The rounds archive provides a route into previous diagnosis cases. For the other games, use their archive within the game experience. Do not assume that matching dates create matching patients or topics across all three activities.
Preparation also protects the debrief. A facilitator who has reviewed the explanation can distinguish the intended teaching point from an interesting but separate question. When an issue needs additional source review, identify it as unresolved rather than inventing a confident answer to keep the game moving.
Give learners a private attempt before discussion
Let participants form an answer before the most confident person speaks. They can write a leading diagnosis and alternative, choose an action privately or note a proposed group with a short reason. This is a suggested facilitation technique, not an additional submission mode in the product.
The purpose is to make different interpretations available for discussion. Once an answer has been announced, it is harder to know which participants reached it independently and which found it persuasive after hearing someone else.
Private commitment need not become a public ranking. Ask for contrasting reasons rather than inviting everyone to disclose a score. A learner should be able to discuss an uncertain interpretation without the session becoming a judgement about their general ability.
Use rounds to make diagnostic updating visible
In rounds, an incorrect guess reveals another clue, up to the six-guess limit. Ask participants what the additional information changes: which explanation becomes more plausible, which loses support and which earlier assumption needs revisiting?
Keep the discussion tied to the information available at that point. Knowing the answer afterwards can make an early clue appear more decisive than it was during the attempt. The useful teaching question is what the learner could reasonably infer before the remaining information appeared.
If the group identifies the diagnosis early, do not manufacture incorrect submissions to make the session longer. Use the time to examine the alternatives and the final explanation. The 20-minute rounds workshop provides a more detailed ready-to-use session plan.
Use stat to separate priority, action and plan review
stat's three scenes ask "Who first?", "What next?" and "What would you change?" They are independent decisions rather than one patient story unfolding across three stages. A facilitator can select the scene that matches the teaching objective and discuss the others separately.
Before debating an option, establish what the question is asking. A reasonable investigation may not be the immediate priority. A generally appropriate plan may still need one important change in the circumstances described. Ask learners to explain that distinction rather than simply name the preferred answer.
The launch editions use UK clinical contexts. Learners working elsewhere should first interpret the stated setting, then discuss what might differ in their own practice. Confidence can provide an additional reflection prompt, but the confident-or-unsure selection is separate from the decision score and is not a competence assessment.
Use clinical connections to uncover the explanation behind a group
A clinical connections puzzle contains sixteen terms arranged into four groups of four. Finding the correct group is a starting point for discussion, not necessarily evidence that everyone understands its clinical meaning.
Ask participants to explain why each term belongs. What relationship are they using: anatomy, mechanism, physiology, a laboratory pattern or a pharmacological action? Could a superficially similar term belong elsewhere for a different reason?
The final group completes by elimination, so give it particular attention. Participants may have finished the board without independently identifying that relationship. The optional application question then offers another problem with separate feedback, outside the puzzle timer and score. Its role is explained in the application-question guide.
Choose a short opener or a longer topic session
For a brief teaching opener, introduce one question, allow an individual attempt and discuss one decisive point. A full three-game sequence is neither necessary nor likely to leave adequate discussion time in a short slot.
For a longer small-group session, select an archived edition that supports an existing teaching topic. Let participants explain their initial reasoning, compare alternatives and revisit the source where it changes the interpretation. End with a question that asks them to use the same distinction in a different example.
These are facilitator-designed activities. The games do not promise that every edition and explanation fits a fixed duration, nor that an archive automatically supplies a complete curriculum. Leave enough space for a genuine uncertainty to be examined rather than racing towards a completed scoreboard.
Handle competition deliberately
Scores can make an activity enjoyable, but their meaning should remain clear. rounds records guesses, stat awards decision points and clinical connections combines grouping progress, speed and penalties. None is a general measure of a learner's clinical ability.
For teaching, prioritise explanations over speed. The clinical connections clock continues through interruptions, and discussion changes the conditions of play. A collaboratively solved puzzle should not be presented as an unaided individual record.
A facilitator may use a shared screen without claiming a team league or multiplayer function. Agree when results can be shared, and keep answers out of messages sent to people who have not played. The sharing guide offers suggested social uses without implying built-in classroom competition.
Adapt the questions, not the learner's status
Mixed groups can work with the same material while answering different follow-up questions. One participant might explain the relevant concept, another compare alternatives and another identify what information would be needed before applying the idea in practice.
Avoid assuming that a particular game belongs to one profession or stage of training. At the same time, recognise differences in clinical role, prior experience and local pathways. A written answer does not demonstrate examination technique, procedural skill or performance with a real patient.
Keep patient-identifiable material out of an informal game discussion. When the teaching point comes from clinical work, use an appropriately fictionalised question and the organisation's usual educational and confidentiality arrangements rather than inserting a real record into a game or personal account.
End with a specific next step, not an automatic learning label
Ask each learner to name one point that became clearer and one question, if any, that remains. Further practice may be helpful where suitable edition-to-library mappings are available, or the learner can select the relevant topic manually through the exam catalogue.
There is no need to turn every uncertain answer into a persistent weakness. The session may have achieved its objective through a short explanation and discussion. Where professional learning is subsequently recorded, the CPD guide distinguishes genuine activity and reflection from an automatically generated claim of credit.
The best endpoint is an explanation the learner can defend: what mattered, why an alternative was tempting and what would change the conclusion. That keeps the game enjoyable while making the teaching purpose visible.
Frequently asked questions
Do iatroX games include a classroom or team mode?
This guide describes facilitator-led uses of the ordinary games, not a dedicated classroom mode, team league or group analytics dashboard. Participants can make private attempts before a shared discussion.
Can learners at different stages use the same challenge?
Yes, when the facilitator selects suitable content and adjusts the follow-up questions. Explaining a concept, comparing alternatives and considering application can provide different levels of discussion without treating the score as a hierarchy.
Should I use the score to assess clinical competence?
No. Scores describe performance within the particular game. Teaching should examine the reasoning directly, while workplace and examination competence require their own appropriate assessments.
Choose an archived challenge for your next teaching session.