Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40380247›Full record

ReviewAdvances in simulation (London, England)2025

From prompt to platform: an agentic AI workflow for healthcare simulation scenario design.

Federico Lorenzo Barra, Giovanna Rodella, Alessandro Costa, Antonio Scalogna, Luca Carenzo, Alice Monzani, Francesco Della Corte

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. A comprehensive survey of AI agents in healthcare.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2026
    Review
  6. Managing maternity: Moving care, not patients, using artificial intelligence (AI), internet-of-things (IOT) and point-of-care testing (POCT) devices.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. AI Agents in Clinical Medicine: A Systematic Review.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Federico Lorenzo BarraDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria "Maggiore Della Carità", Novara, Italy.
Giovanna RodellaSIMNOVA-Interdepartmental Center for Innovative Learning and Simulation in Medicine and Allied Health Professions, University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy.
Alessandro CostaSIMNOVA-Interdepartmental Center for Innovative Learning and Simulation in Medicine and Allied Health Professions, University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy.
Antonio ScalognaSIMNOVA-Interdepartmental Center for Innovative Learning and Simulation in Medicine and Allied Health Professions, University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy.
Luca CarenzoDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy. luca.carenzo@hunimed.eu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4646-2660
Alice MonzaniSIMNOVA-Interdepartmental Center for Innovative Learning and Simulation in Medicine and Allied Health Professions, University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy.
Francesco Della CorteSIMNOVA-Interdepartmental Center for Innovative Learning and Simulation in Medicine and Allied Health Professions, University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare simulation scenario design remains a resource-intensive process, demanding significant time and expertise from educators. This article presents an innovative AI-driven agentic workflow for healthcare simulation scenario development, bridging technical capability with pedagogical effectiveness. The system evolved from an initial ChatGPT-based prototype to a sophisticated platform implementation utilizing multiple specialized AI agents. Each agent addresses specific sub-tasks, including objective formulation, patient narrative generation, diagnostic data creation, and debriefing point development. The workflow employs advanced AI methodologies including decomposition, prompt chaining, parallelization, retrieval-augmented generation, and iterative refinement, all orchestrated through a user-friendly conversational interface. Critical to implementation was the demonstration that healthcare professionals with modest technical skills could develop these complex workflows without specialized AI expertise. The system ensures consistent adherence to established simulation guidelines, including INACSL Standards of Best Practice and ASPiH Standards Framework, while significantly reducing scenario development time by approximately 70-80%. Designed for broad applicability across diverse clinical settings and learner levels, the workflow incorporates multilingual capabilities for global application. Potential pitfalls include the necessity for rigorous review of AI-generated content and awareness of bias in model outputs. Key lessons learned emphasize interdisciplinary collaboration, systematic prompt refinement, essential human oversight, and the democratization of AI tools in healthcare education. This innovation demonstrates how sophisticated agentic AI implementations can transform healthcare simulation through enhanced efficiency, consistency, and accessibility without sacrificing pedagogical integrity.

Indexed as

Agentic workflowAIArtificial intelligenceASPiH standardsAutomationChatGPTHealthcare simulationINACSL standardsN8nScenario design

Identifiers

PMID40380247
PMCPMC12085049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.