Effectiveness and Utility of Virtual Reality Simulation as an Educational Tool for Safe Performance of COVID-19 Diagnostics: Prospective, Randomized Pilot Trial.
COVID-19
PPE
VR
diagnostic
effectiveness
hand hygiene
medical education
nasopharyngeal swab
pilot study
protection
simulation
testing
utility
virtual reality
Journal
JMIR serious games
ISSN: 2291-9279
Titre abrégé: JMIR Serious Games
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101645255
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Oct 2021
08 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
26
04
2021
accepted:
09
09
2021
revised:
12
06
2021
entrez:
8
10
2021
pubmed:
9
10
2021
medline:
9
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although the proper use of hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE) is paramount for preventing the spread of diseases such as COVID-19, health care personnel have been shown to use incorrect techniques for donning/doffing of PPE and hand hygiene, leading to a large number of infections among health professionals. Education and training are difficult owing to the social distancing restrictions in place, shortages of PPE and testing material, and lack of evidence on optimal training. Virtual reality (VR) simulation can offer a multisensory, 3-D, fully immersive, and safe training opportunity that addresses these obstacles. The aim of this study is to explore the short- and long-term effectiveness of a fully immersive VR simulation versus a traditional learning method regarding a COVID-19-related skill set and media-specific variables influencing training outcomes. This was a prospective, randomized controlled pilot study on medical students (N=29; intervention VR training, n=15, vs control video-based instruction, n=14) to compare the performance of hand disinfection, nasopharyngeal swab taking, and donning/doffing of PPE before and after training and 1 month later as well as variables of media use. Both groups performed significantly better after training, with the effect sustained over one month. After training, the VR group performed significantly better in taking a nasopharyngeal swab, scoring a median of 14 out of 17 points (IQR 13-15) versus 12 out of 17 points (IQR 11-14) in the control group, P=.03. With good immersion and tolerability of the VR simulation, satisfaction was significantly higher in the VR group compared to the control group (median score of User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire 27/30, IQR 23-28, vs 22/30, IQR 20-24, in the control group; P=.01). VR simulation was at least as effective as traditional learning methods in training medical students while providing benefits regarding user satisfaction. These results add to the growing body of evidence that VR is a useful tool for acquiring simple and complex clinical skills.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although the proper use of hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE) is paramount for preventing the spread of diseases such as COVID-19, health care personnel have been shown to use incorrect techniques for donning/doffing of PPE and hand hygiene, leading to a large number of infections among health professionals. Education and training are difficult owing to the social distancing restrictions in place, shortages of PPE and testing material, and lack of evidence on optimal training. Virtual reality (VR) simulation can offer a multisensory, 3-D, fully immersive, and safe training opportunity that addresses these obstacles.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to explore the short- and long-term effectiveness of a fully immersive VR simulation versus a traditional learning method regarding a COVID-19-related skill set and media-specific variables influencing training outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a prospective, randomized controlled pilot study on medical students (N=29; intervention VR training, n=15, vs control video-based instruction, n=14) to compare the performance of hand disinfection, nasopharyngeal swab taking, and donning/doffing of PPE before and after training and 1 month later as well as variables of media use.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Both groups performed significantly better after training, with the effect sustained over one month. After training, the VR group performed significantly better in taking a nasopharyngeal swab, scoring a median of 14 out of 17 points (IQR 13-15) versus 12 out of 17 points (IQR 11-14) in the control group, P=.03. With good immersion and tolerability of the VR simulation, satisfaction was significantly higher in the VR group compared to the control group (median score of User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire 27/30, IQR 23-28, vs 22/30, IQR 20-24, in the control group; P=.01).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
VR simulation was at least as effective as traditional learning methods in training medical students while providing benefits regarding user satisfaction. These results add to the growing body of evidence that VR is a useful tool for acquiring simple and complex clinical skills.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34623315
pii: v9i4e29586
doi: 10.2196/29586
pmc: PMC8510143
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e29586Informations de copyright
©Tanja Birrenbach, Josua Zbinden, George Papagiannakis, Aristomenis K Exadaktylos, Martin Müller, Wolf E Hautz, Thomas Christian Sauter. Originally published in JMIR Serious Games (https://games.jmir.org), 08.10.2021.
Références
Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 May;5(5):232-3
pubmed: 18382434
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 1;22(6):e17945
pubmed: 32478661
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 28;382(22):e76
pubmed: 32302471
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020 Dec 15;28(24):1027-1040
pubmed: 32398408
Simul Healthc. 2019 Jun;14(3):188-194
pubmed: 30601464
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):e2031217
pubmed: 33369660
Resuscitation. 2017 Dec;121:e1-e2
pubmed: 28951295
Lancet. 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):922
pubmed: 32199474
Can J Anaesth. 2020 Jul;67(7):895-896
pubmed: 32221852
Ann Transl Med. 2021 Feb;9(3):252
pubmed: 33708879
Sensors (Basel). 2017 Jul 07;17(7):
pubmed: 28686174
Med Educ. 2006 Aug;40(8):716-7
pubmed: 16869912
Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Dec;71:7-9
pubmed: 30205259
Am J Transl Res. 2017 Sep 15;9(9):3867-3880
pubmed: 28979666
Int J Med Educ. 2020 Jan 18;11:1-18
pubmed: 31955150
J Med Virol. 2020 Apr;92(4):401-402
pubmed: 31950516
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Oct;34(10):2278-2283
pubmed: 31056442
Am J Infect Control. 2011 Jun;39(5):415-420
pubmed: 21255874
Comput Inform Nurs. 2015 Feb;33(2):49-57
pubmed: 25521788
Surg Endosc. 2011 Mar;25(3):722-7
pubmed: 20927549
Am J Infect Control. 2016 Jul 1;44(7):840-2
pubmed: 27181222
JMIR Serious Games. 2020 Jul 31;8(3):e18822
pubmed: 32735548
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jan 22;21(1):e12959
pubmed: 30668519
JMIR Serious Games. 2021 Mar 24;9(1):e24170
pubmed: 33759797
Adv Simul (Lond). 2021 Jan 13;6(1):2
pubmed: 33441190
Am J Infect Control. 2014 Jul;42(7):799-801
pubmed: 24767574
Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Feb;102:103466
pubmed: 31783192
Eye (Lond). 2020 Oct;34(10):1737-1759
pubmed: 32203241
GMS J Med Educ. 2020 Nov 16;37(6):Doc62
pubmed: 33225054
Endoscopy. 2019 Jul;51(7):653-664
pubmed: 31071757
Med Educ Online. 2017;22(1):1264125
pubmed: 28178912
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2019;16:31
pubmed: 31614408
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 15;4:CD011621
pubmed: 32293717