Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1/2677
Title: Using Virtual Reality to teach ultrasound-guided needling skills for regional anaesthesia: A randomised controlled trial
Authors: Chuan, Alwin;Bogdanovych, Anton;Moran, Benjamin L ;Chowdhury, Supriya;Lim, Yean Chin;Tran, Minh T;Lee, Tsz Yui;Duong, Jayden;Qian, Jennifer;Bui, Tung;Chua, Alex M H;Jeyaratnam, Bahaven;Siu, Steven;Tiong, Clement;McKendrick, Mel;McLeod, Graeme A
Affliation: Central Coast Local Health District
Gosford Hospital
Issue Date: 17-Jun-2024
Source: Online ahead of print
Journal title: Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
Department: Anaesthesia
Abstract: We previously designed and validated a virtual reality-based simulator to help train novices in ultrasound-guided needling skills necessary for safe and competent ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia. This study was designed to compare the performance and error rates of novices trained by a human faculty aided with the assistance of this virtual reality simulator (virtual reality-assisted training), versus novices trained wholly by humans (conventional training). In this single centre, randomised controlled study, we used a standardised teaching protocol, rigorous blinding, iterative training of assessors, and validated global rating scale and composite error score checklists to assess skills learning of novice participants. We recruited 45 novices and scored 270 assessments of performance and error rates. Inter-rater correlation coefficient of reliability of scoring between assessors for the global rating scale was 0.84 (95%CI 0.68-0.92) and for the composite error score checklist was 0.87 (95%CI 0.73-0.93). After adjustment for age, sex, Depression, Anxiety and Stress-21, and baseline score, there was no statistical difference for virtual reality-assisted training compared to conventional training in final global rating score (average treatment effect -3.30 (95%CI-13.07-6.48), p = 0.51) or in the final composite error score (average treatment effect 1.14 (95%CI -0.60-2.88), p = 0.20). Realism in the virtual reality simulator was similar to real-life when measured by the Presence Questionnaire, all components p > 0.79; and task workload assessed by the NASA-Task Load Index was not statistically different between groups, average treatment effect 5.02 (95%CI -3.51-13.54), p = 0.25. Results were achieved in the virtual reality-assisted group with half the human faculty involvement. Novices trained using a hybrid, virtual reality-assisted teaching program showed no superiority to novices trained using a conventional teaching program, but with less burden on teaching resources.
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/1/2677
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111535
Pubmed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38889487
Publicaton type: Journal Article
Keywords: Anesthetics
Anaesthetics
Study or Trial: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial/Controlled Clinical Trial
Appears in Collections:Health Service Research

Show full item record

Page view(s)

4
checked on Jul 21, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.