On Monday morning, several students report stomach cramps, nausea and fever after Friday’s science fair. The school must respond quickly, but the cause is uncertain. Your team is the emergency investigation panel.
Important: This is a simulated educational activity. You are not diagnosing real patients. You are practising evidence-based reasoning, teamwork and decision-making.
Keeps the team focused, includes quieter members and checks time.
Interprets symptom, attendance and exposure data.
Looks for contradictions, uncertainty and alternative explanations.
Checks privacy, fairness, communication and safety.
Organises the final 3-minute presentation with transitions.
Tracks action costs and keeps the plan under $18,000.
| Time | Event |
|---|---|
| Friday 11:30 am–1:30 pm | Science fair with food stalls, plant-growing display, chemistry demo and sports hall activities. |
| Friday 2:00 pm | Water refill station near Hall B reported low pressure for 20 minutes. |
| Saturday evening | First student reports stomach cramps and nausea. |
| Sunday | More students report symptoms. |
| Monday morning | School leadership requests investigation and response plan. |
| Group | Number of students | Reported symptoms | Attack rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ate chicken wraps | 38 | 24 | 63% |
| Ate vegetarian sushi | 31 | 8 | 26% |
| Ate fruit cups | 29 | 5 | 17% |
| Drank from Hall B refill station | 52 | 17 | 33% |
| Attended chemistry demo only | 44 | 6 | 14% |
| No food, no Hall B water | 22 | 2 | 9% |
| Symptom | Number affected | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Nausea | 31 | Common among affected students |
| Stomach cramps | 28 | Often began 18–30 hours after fair |
| Fever | 18 | Mild to moderate |
| Cough / breathing irritation | 3 | Not common |
| Skin rash | 1 | Likely unrelated |
| Location / item | Observation | Risk signal |
|---|---|---|
| Chicken wrap stall | Temperature log missing between 10:45 am and 12:15 pm. Leftover chicken container found at 14°C. | High |
| Vegetarian sushi stall | Food prepared offsite. No temperature issue recorded. | Medium |
| Fruit cup stall | Gloves used. Fruit kept chilled. | Low |
| Hall B water station | Low pressure incident. No visible contamination. Routine test last month was clear. | Medium |
| Chemistry demo | Vinegar/bicarbonate and colour indicators used. No harmful fumes reported. | Low |
| Sample | Rapid bacteria indicator | Follow-up lab result? | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leftover chicken | Positive | In 48 hours | Moderate-high |
| Hall B water station | Negative | In 48 hours | Moderate |
| Vegetarian sushi sample | Negative | In 48 hours | Moderate |
| Fruit cup sample | Negative | In 48 hours | Moderate |
| Concern | Percentage of 180 parent responses |
|---|---|
| Clear communication from school | 42% |
| Preventing future incidents | 31% |
| Finding exact cause immediately | 17% |
| Keeping the science fair running next year | 10% |
Choose any combination, but total cost must be $18,000 or less.
| Action | Cost | Benefit | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate food-safety audit and retraining | $4,000 | Targets likely food-handling issue and prevents recurrence. | Does not provide medical follow-up. |
| Independent lab testing of all food and water samples | $5,500 | Improves evidence confidence and protects fairness. | Results take 48 hours. |
| Temporary closure of chicken wrap supplier pending results | $1,000 | Fast risk reduction if chicken is source. | Could be unfair if stated as blame before confirmation. |
| School health information hotline / nurse triage day | $3,500 | Supports affected students and reduces panic. | Does not identify source. |
| Water-system inspection and precautionary flushing | $3,000 | Addresses parent concerns and medium-risk water incident. | Data currently points more strongly to food. |
| Public blame statement naming the chicken stall | $500 | Very fast communication. | Ethically risky before confirmation; may damage trust. |
| Updated science fair safety plan for next year | $2,500 | Long-term prevention, food logs, checklist and emergency communication. | Not enough alone for immediate response. |
| Cancel all future science fairs | $2,000 | Eliminates event risk. | Extreme; loses educational value and does not solve process problem. |
| Parent communication pack with uncertainty explained | $1,500 | Clear, honest communication; explains evidence and next steps. | Must be carefully worded to avoid panic or blame. |
| Student handwashing and safe-food campaign | $2,000 | Supports prevention and student responsibility. | Lower immediate impact than testing and audit. |
Our team thinks the most likely cause is:
________________________________________
Evidence:
What else could explain the illness?
Why is this less likely?
________________________________________
| Action | Cost | Why chosen? |
|---|---|---|
Total cost: $______________
How will you communicate without blaming too early?
________________________________________
What uncertainty remains?
________________________________________
| Speaker | Focus | Suggested sentence starter |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Problem and key evidence | “Our team investigated a possible illness cluster after the science fair...” |
| 2 | Data interpretation | “The strongest evidence is the attack rate data...” |
| 3 | Recommended action plan and budget | “Our plan costs ___ and includes...” |
| 4 | Ethics, uncertainty and communication | “We are avoiding blame before confirmation because...” |
| 5 | Conclusion | “Overall, our plan is strongest because...” |
| Criteria | Excellent 5–6 | Good 3–4 | Developing 1–2 | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data analysis | Uses multiple data sources, compares attack rates, considers uncertainty. | Uses some data but may miss uncertainty. | Relies mostly on guesses or one clue. | /6 |
| Decision quality | Plan is practical, balanced, under budget and justified. | Mostly practical but misses one key element. | Unclear, over budget or poorly connected to evidence. | /6 |
| Ethical reasoning | Considers safety, privacy, fairness, uncertainty and communication. | Mentions ethics but not deeply. | Blames too early or ignores affected people. | /6 |
| Teamwork | All students contribute, listen and build on ideas. | Most students contribute. | One person dominates or group lacks coordination. | /6 |
| Presentation | Clear, structured, evidence-based and within time. | Understandable but may lack flow or transitions. | Disorganised or not clearly supported by evidence. | /6 |