You have recognised the problem. Now comes the less comfortable question: what should happen next? Which patient takes priority? Which action matters now? What would you change in a plan that looks reasonable at first glance? These are the questions behind iatroX stat, a new daily clinical challenge joining rounds in the iatroX games collection.
Each edition contains three independent scenes, built around three prompts: "Who first?", "What next?" and "What would you change?" You choose an answer, confirm it and then examine the reasoning. The challenge is complete and free, with a final debrief that gives the decisions more substance than a row of right-or-wrong marks.
A daily challenge about decisions, not just diagnoses
In rounds, the central task is to identify a diagnosis as clues appear. stat starts from a different educational question. Recognising a condition may help, but the answer must address the action requested in the scene. The most likely explanation, the most urgent concern and the most useful immediate step are not automatically the same thing.
That distinction creates room for a different kind of discussion. You might know why an investigation is useful but still need to decide whether it belongs before or after another action. You might agree with the broad direction of a plan while recognising that one part needs changing. stat gives those choices a short, repeatable format.
The three-game collection now offers diagnosis, decisions and relationships between concepts. None replaces the others. The collection overview explains how to choose an activity according to what interests you today.
Inside a daily edition
The first scene asks "Who first?" Read the information provided and decide which priority best fits those circumstances. It is an invitation to notice the feature that changes urgency, rather than select whichever description sounds most dramatic in isolation.
The second asks "What next?" Here the task is to choose the preferred next action. Read the question carefully: an appropriate part of a longer plan is not necessarily the right answer to a question about the immediate next step.
The third asks "What would you change?" Instead of starting with a blank page, you examine an existing plan. The useful habit is to identify the particular element that needs attention and why, rather than assume that a plausible-looking plan is either wholly correct or wholly wrong.
These are independent scenes, not a branching simulation of one patient. An incorrect first answer does not change the facts of the second scene or force you down a less favourable route. Each decision is a fresh opportunity to read, consider and commit.
Select, confirm and consider your confidence
For each scene, select the answer you prefer and confirm your choice. Before the explanation, you can also indicate whether you feel confident or unsure. That confidence judgement is optional and recorded separately from the decision score.
Use it as an honest description of the attempt. Being unsure does not make a correct answer less correct, and selecting confident does not earn extra decision points. The point is to preserve a small piece of information that is otherwise easy to forget once the answer becomes visible: how convincing did your original reasoning feel?
Afterwards, an unexpected result can support a useful question. Did you miss a finding, assume a different setting or favour an action that belonged later? The confidence and reflection guide explores that part of the experience without turning one response into a judgement about your competence.
How the score out of six works
The initial stat bank awards two points for the preferred answer in each scene and zero for the alternatives. Three decisions therefore produce a total out of six. There is no partial-credit category in this initial scoring arrangement.
A result of 4/6 means two preferred decisions across the three scenes. It does not mean four separate questions were answered correctly. It also differs from a rounds result such as 3/6, where the number describes the guess on which the diagnosis was identified.
The score provides a clear result to share, but the explanation is where you can inspect what happened. A lower score may contain one especially useful distinction. A perfect score may still be worth reviewing when you reached an answer for a different reason from the one emphasised in the debrief.
The launch series: 50 editions and 150 decisions
stat launches with 50 editions containing 150 decisions, explicitly set in UK clinical contexts. Themes include "the quiet deterioration", "a changing creatinine" and "the medicines list". Those titles suggest the kinds of information worth noticing without giving away the preferred answers.
The UK setting is part of the question, not a cosmetic label. When reviewing an explanation, keep the stated role, resources and circumstances in view. International players are welcome to explore the reasoning, but should not silently substitute a different local pathway and then assume the game asked the same question.
The initial series is a collection of defined learning activities, not a promise of comprehensive specialty or examination coverage. Its purpose is to offer a manageable decision challenge, with enough explanation to make the choice worth discussing afterwards.
Read the alternatives, not only the winning answer
The final debrief brings together the preferred decisions, the reasoning behind the alternatives and linked sources. A useful review starts with the option that attracted you: what made it plausible, and which detail made another action preferable in this scene?
Then consider the boundary of the explanation. What change in the facts might make the alternative more appropriate? You do not need to invent a new treatment plan. Simply identifying the assumption on which the answer depends can turn a remembered option into a clearer understanding of the question.
Source links provide a route to examine the supporting material. They do not imply endorsement of stat by the organisations that publish that material, and the game's score is not a validated assessment of real-world clinical decision-making.
A complete challenge, with an optional next step
The archive lets you revisit earlier editions, and sharing gives a colleague a concrete challenge to attempt before discussing the answers. Keep the decisions out of your message so that the other person can make an independent attempt.
Where suitable mappings exist, an edition can also offer related question practice. Availability depends on the edition and selected question library; there is no need to treat every missed choice as an automatically diagnosed knowledge gap. The focused-practice guide explains both the related-question route and the manual alternative through the exam catalogue.
You can also stop after the debrief. stat is not an unfinished trial that requires a subscription to become worthwhile. It is three daily decisions, a clear result and something specific to think about before the next edition.
Frequently asked questions
Is iatroX stat free to play?
Yes. The daily challenge, its explanations and archive form a complete free activity. Additional question-bank and learning tools have their own access arrangements.
Does choosing "confident" increase my score?
No. Confidence is recorded separately. In the initial bank, each preferred decision earns two points and each alternative earns zero, giving a total out of six.
Are the three scenes connected to one patient?
No. They are independent decisions. An earlier mistake does not determine the information or options presented in the next scene.