High-fidelity simulation and virtual reality: an evaluation of medical students' experiences.

Alexandra Frances Macnamara, Katie Bird, Alan Rigby, Thozhukat Sathyapalan, David Hepburn
Author Information
  1. Alexandra Frances Macnamara: Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK. ORCID
  2. Katie Bird: Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK.
  3. Alan Rigby: Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK.
  4. Thozhukat Sathyapalan: Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK.
  5. David Hepburn: Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK.

Abstract

Background: Simulation technology is widely used in medical education, providing an environment in which students can develop and practise a multitude of skills that are relevant to clinical practice, without the risk of harm to patients.
Methods: We conducted a mixed methods cross-over study with quantitative and qualitative outcomes. This analysed students' perceptions of two simulation technologies: a high-fidelity patient simulator and virtual reality. Twenty final year medical students completed a questionnaire after having experienced both simulation modalities.
Results: Students scored the patient simulator higher in domains such as developing team working and 'ABCDE assessment skills', whereas the virtual reality simulation was more immersive and fun. Participants found the patient simulator more useful in preparing them for clinical practice.
Conclusion: Medical students in this study expressed that a high-fidelity patient simulator, in a simulated clinical environment, was of greater value to their preparation for clinical practice than virtual reality simulation of a similar environment. However, the virtual reality simulation offered a near comparable experience, and was found to be was enjoyable, immersive and easily portable.

Keywords

References

  1. Am J Transl Res. 2017 Sep 15;9(9):3867-3880 [PMID: 28979666]
  2. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Apr 8;22(4):e17279 [PMID: 32267235]
  3. Open Nurs J. 2012;6:82-9 [PMID: 22893783]
  4. Med Educ. 2008 Dec;42(12):1150-2 [PMID: 19120943]
  5. Emerg Med J. 2006 Jul;23(7):509-11 [PMID: 16794089]
  6. Clin Teach. 2016 Aug;13(4):257-61 [PMID: 26597094]
  7. Qual Health Res. 2012 Oct;22(10):1383-94 [PMID: 22811304]
  8. BMC Med Educ. 2014 Nov 19;14:231 [PMID: 25410815]
  9. Crit Care Med. 2006 Jan;34(1):151-7 [PMID: 16374169]
  10. Int J Med Educ. 2015 Nov 22;6:166-71 [PMID: 26590951]
  11. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;125:155-60 [PMID: 17377256]
  12. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Sep 17;16(9):e214 [PMID: 25230684]
  13. BMC Res Notes. 2015 Sep 10;8:427 [PMID: 26358413]
  14. West J Emerg Med. 2011 Nov;12(4):461-6 [PMID: 22224138]
  15. Med Educ. 2004 Dec;38(12):1217-8 [PMID: 15566531]
  16. Ann Emerg Med. 2009 Nov;54(5):684-91 [PMID: 19394113]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0simulationvirtualmedicalrealityclinicalpatientsimulatoreducationenvironmentstudentspracticestudystudents'high-fidelityimmersivefoundBackground:SimulationtechnologywidelyusedprovidingcandeveloppractisemultitudeskillsrelevantwithoutriskharmpatientsMethods:conductedmixedmethodscross-overquantitativequalitativeoutcomesanalysedperceptionstwotechnologies:TwentyfinalyearcompletedquestionnaireexperiencedmodalitiesResults:Studentsscoredhigherdomainsdevelopingteamworking'ABCDEassessmentskills'whereasfunParticipantsusefulpreparingConclusion:MedicalexpressedsimulatedgreatervaluepreparationsimilarHoweverofferednearcomparableexperienceenjoyableeasilyportableHigh-fidelityreality:evaluationexperienceshighfidelityresearchsimulation-based

Similar Articles

Cited By (6)