Evaluation of high-fidelity and virtual reality simulation platforms for assessing fourth-year medical students' encounters with patients in need of urgent or emergent care.
Matthew Malone, David P Way, Cynthia G Leung, Douglas Danforth, Kellen Maicher, Joanne Vakil, Nicholas Kman, Christopher San Miguel
Author Information
Matthew Malone: Department of Emergency Medicine, OH State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
David P Way: Department of Emergency Medicine, OH State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA. ORCID
Cynthia G Leung: Department of Emergency Medicine, OH State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Douglas Danforth: Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Kellen Maicher: James Cancer Hospital, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Joanne Vakil: Office of Curriculum and Scholarship, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Nicholas Kman: Department of Emergency Medicine, OH State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Christopher San Miguel: Department of Emergency Medicine, OH State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
BACKGROUND: Medical students in the U.S. must demonstrate urgent and emergent care competence before graduation. Urgent and emergent care competence involves recognizing, evaluating and initiating management of an unstable patient. High-fidelity (HF) simulation can improve urgent and emergent care skills, but because it is resource intense, alternative methods are needed. STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our primary purpose was to use program evaluations to compare medical student experiences with HF and virtual reality (VR) simulations as assessment platforms for urgent and emergent care skills. METHODS: During their emergency medicine clerkship, students at The Ohio State University College of Medicine must demonstrate on HF manikins, competence in recognizing and initiating care of a patient requiring urgent or emergent care. Students evaluated these simulations on a five-point quality scale and answered open-ended questions about simulation strengths and weaknesses. Faculty provided feedback on student competence in delivering urgent or emergent care. In 2022, we introduced VR as an alternative assessment platform. We used Wilcoxon Signed Ranks and Boxplots to compare ratings of HF to VR and McNemar Test to compare competence ratings. Comments were analyzed with summative content analysis or thematic coding. RESULTS: We received at least one evaluation survey from 160 of 216 (74.1%) emergency medicine clerkship students. We were able to match 125 of 216 (57.9%) evaluation surveys for students who completed both. Average ratings of HF simulations were 4.6 of 5, while ratings of VR simulations were slightly lower at 4.4. Comments suggested that feedback from both simulation platforms was valued. Students described VR as novel, immersive, and good preparation for clinical practice. Constructive criticism identified the need for additional practice in the VR environment. Student performance between platforms was significantly different with 91.7% of students achieving competence in HF, but only 65.5% in VR (���.001, odds-ratio = 5.75). CONCLUSION: VR simulation functions similarly to HF for formative assessment of urgent and emergent care competence. However, using VR simulation for summative assessment of urgent and emergent care competence must be considered with caution because students require considerable practice and acclimation to the virtual environment.
