ABSTRACT
What was the educational challenge?There is a growing need for healthcare simulation options when local expertise or resources are not available. To connect instructors with remote learners, current options for distance simulation are typically limited to videoconferencing on desktop computers or mobile devices, which may not fully capture the complexity of clinical scenarios.What was the solution?Extended reality (XR) technology may provide a more immersive and realistic distance healthcare simulation experience compared to traditional videoconferencing options. Unlike computer- or phone-based video calls, stereoscopic video in XR provides a sense of depth that may increase spatial understanding and engagement in distance simulation.How was the solution implemented?We investigated the impact of XR for synchronous distance simulation compared to traditional desktop-based videoconferencing in Emergency Medicine (EM) resident training for an obstetrical emergency. A randomized controlled experiment was conducted with half of the residents using XR and half using computers to participate in the simulation.What lessons were learned that are relevant to a wider global audience?There was an unanticipated interaction between postgraduate year and condition such that performance in the XR condition was superior for first year residents, while this was reversed for more experienced residents. This indicates that the benefits of XR might be dependent on participant characteristics, such as learner level.What are the next steps?We plan to extend this research to clarify characteristics of learners and tasks that are important determinants of differences in outcomes between stereoscopic XR versus traditional videoconference displays.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Recent meta-analyses have found immersive technology to be effective for training, yet there is limited research on user experience with head-mounted displays (HMDs) in the medical domain. If emerging immersive displays do not meet usability standards in the context of healthcare simulation, the technology may cause frustration or hinder learning outcomes. This is the first experimental comparison of usability in commercial untethered, "all-in-one" HMDs for healthcare simulation. METHODS: The usability and comfort of three commercial untethered HMDs (Oculus Go, Oculus Quest, and Lenovo Mirage Solo) were tested using a randomized within-person design such that each headset was evaluated by all participants in a random sequence. During the experiment, participants (n = 9) interacted with a simulated healthcare environment in each headset and then responded to usability and comfort surveys. RESULTS: All of the HMDs were rated as having higher than average usability compared with an industry benchmark scale, the System Usability Scale. Only one of the headsets had a usability rating in the highest range, which was significantly higher than the lowest rated headset ( P = 0.047, Cohen d = 0.901). In addition, feelings of discomfort with the headsets were low, and comfort ratings did not differ significantly between headsets ( P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Untethered HMDs had acceptable user experience ratings during a healthcare simulation task, but some headsets were rated higher on usability. Because usability is important for learner engagement and training outcomes, educators should confirm that immersive displays meet usability standards before implementation.
Subject(s)
Education, Medical , Humans , Computer Simulation , LearningABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Combat casualty care requires learning a complex set of skills to treat patients in challenging situations, including resource scarce environments, multiple casualty incidents, and care under fire. To train the skills needed to respond efficiently and appropriately to these diverse conditions, instructors employ a wide array of simulation modalities. Simulation modalities for medical training include manikins, task trainers, standardized patient actors (i.e., role players), computer or extended reality simulations (e.g., virtual reality, augmented reality), cadavers, and live tissue training. Simulation modalities differ from one another in multiple attributes (e.g., realism, availability). The purpose of this study was to compare capabilities across simulation modalities for combat casualty care from the perspective of experienced military medics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To provide a more complete understanding of the relative merits and limitations of modalities, military combat medics (N = 33) were surveyed on the capabilities of simulation modalities during a 5-day technical experimentation event where they observed medical simulations from industry developers. The survey asked them to rate each of eleven modalities on each of seven attributes. To elicit additional context for the strengths, limitations, and unique considerations of using each modality, we also collected open-ended comments to provide further insight on when and how to use specific simulation modalities. RESULTS: Results showed differences among the simulation modalities by attribute. Cadavers, role play, moulage, and live tissue all received high ratings on two or more attributes. However, there was no modality that was rated uniformly superior to the others. Instead, modalities appear to have unique strengths and limitations depending on the training context and objectives. For example, cadavers were seen as highly realistic, but not very reusable. CONCLUSIONS: The study furthers our understanding of simulation modalities for medical training by providing insight from combat medics on the benefits, limitations, and considerations for implementing different modalities depending on the training context. These results may be helpful to instructors in selecting modalities for their programs.