Virtual Reality, Heart Arrest
Conditions
Keywords
in-hospital cardiac arrest, Education, Medical
Brief summary
The goal of this single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of using virtual reality technology to provide learners with skills and knowledge in the management of traumatic cardiac arrest in first-year residents at the emergency department. The main question it aims to answer is: Does the use of virtual reality in the context of trauma cardiopulmonary resuscitation training result in shorter times to order/perform pre-defined critical actions? Participants will learn management skills for in-hospital traumatic cardiac arrest using either newly developed virtual reality software or e-learning focused on the same content.
Interventions
OTHERe-learning
Participants will complete an e-learning course over a two-week period that focuses on skills and knowledge related to the management of in-hospital cardiac arrest. This course prepares participants for an in-person assessment.
OTHERVirtual reality training
Participants will complete a virtual reality training over a two-week period that focuses on skills and knowledge related to the management of in-hospital cardiac arrest. This training prepares participants for an in-person assessment.
Sponsors
Medical University of Vienna
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 110 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* first-year residents at the emergency department * only people who do not need eyeglasses for using VR
Exclusion criteria
\- pre-disposition for cybersickness (motion sickness, pregnancy, pre-existing cybersickness)
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Time to critical action | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Expert-based assessment of the difference in time (seconds) to the predefined primary critical action between randomized groups in video recordings of an in-person assessment simulation. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Time to secondary critical action #2 | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Expert-based assessment of the difference in time (seconds) to the predefined secondary critical action #2 between randomized groups in video recordings of an in-person assessment simulation. |
| Number of unrecognized causes of traumatic cardiac arrest | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Expert-based assessment of the difference in unrecognized underlying causes of traumatic cardiac arrest between randomized groups in video recordings of an in-person assessment simulation. |
| Number of patients declared dead prematurely | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Expert-based assessment of the difference in the number of patients declared dead prematurely between the randomized groups in video recordings of an in-person assessment simulation. |
| Number of protocol deviations | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Expert-based assessment of the difference in the frequency of protocol deviations between randomized groups in video recordings of an in-person assessment simulation. Protocol deviations are listed in the study protocol and reflect the recommendations of the guidelines on which the study is based. |
| Gender-differences in learning outcomes | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Expert-based assessment of the difference in time (seconds) to the predefined primary critical action between randomized groups in video recordings of an in-person assessment simulation based on gender. |
| Group difference in global cognitive load while performing the in-person assessment simulation | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Assessment of the difference in global cognitive load between randomized groups immediately following the in-person assessment simulation using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) global task load index, which ranges from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate greater cognitive load. |
| Group difference in cognitive load (per objective) while performing the in-person assessment simulation | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Assessment of the difference in cognitive load (per objective) between randomized groups immediately following the in-person assessment simulation using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) task load index, which ranges from 0 to 100. Objectives are: (mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, frustration). Higher scores indicate greater mental demand/higher physical demand/ higher temporal demand/worse performance/more effort/more frustration). |
| Gaze behavior during the in-person assessment simulation: dwell-time in areas of interest | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Assessment of differences (in seconds) in gaze behavior (dwell time in areas of interest) using Tobii Pro eye-tracking technology between randomized groups based on recordings of the in-person assessment simulation The defined areas of interest for analysis are the manikin's head/airway, the manikin's thorax, the vital signs monitor, and the ventilator monitor. |
| Gaze behavior during the in-person assessment simulation: fixation count in areas of interest | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Assessment of differences in gaze behavior (fixation count in areas of interest) using Tobii Pro eye-tracking technology between randomized groups based on recordings of the in-person assessment simulation. The defined areas of interest for analysis are the manikin's head/airway, the manikin's thorax, the vital signs monitor, and the ventilator monitor. |
| Gaze behavior during the in-person assessment simulation: average fixation duration in areas of interest | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Assessment of differences (in seconds) in gaze behavior (average fixation duration in areas of interest) using Tobii Pro eye-tracking technology between randomized groups based on recordings of the in-person assessment simulation The defined areas of interest for analysis are the manikin's head/airway, the manikin's thorax, the vital signs monitor, and the ventilator monitor. |
| Gaze behavior during the in-person assessment simulation: time when no area of interest is illustrated | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Assessment of differences (in seconds) in gaze behavior (time when no area of interest is illustrated) using Tobii Pro eye-tracking technology between randomized groups based on recordings of the in-person assessment simulation The defined areas of interst for analysis are the manikin's head/airway, the manikin's thorax, the vital signs monitor, and the ventilator monitor. |
| Participants' subjective impressions of their learning progress when using virtual reality/e-learning | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | 5-point Likert scale 1 - not helpful at all; 2 - rather not helpful; 3 - neither helpful nor not helpful; 4 - rather helpful; 5 - very helpful |
| Time to secondary critical action #1 | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Expert-based assessment of the difference in time (seconds) to the predefined secondary critical action #1 between randomized groups in video recordings of an in-person assessment simulation. |
| Participants' subjective impression of their level of enjoyment when using virtual reality/e-learning | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | 5-point Likert scale 1 - not enjoyed at all; 2 - rather not enjoyed; 3 - neither enjoyed nor not enjoyed; 4 - rather enjoyed; 5 - very enjoyed |
| Participants' subjective confidence in recognizing and providing initial care to polytraumatized patients in cardiac arrest in the in-person assessment simulation | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | 5-point Likert scale 1 - not confident at all; 2 - rather not confident; 3 - neither confident nor not confident; 4 - rather confident; 5 - very confident |
| Participants' subjective overall performance in the simulation sessions | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | 5-point Likert scale 1 - not good at all; 2 - rather not good; 3 - neither good nor not good; 4 - rather good; 5 - very good |
| Participants' overall performance in the simulation sessions from the expert's point of view | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | 5-point Likert scale 1 - not good at all; 2 - rather not good; 3 - neither good nor not good; 4 - rather good; 5 - very good |
| The correlation between how often participants have played virtual reality video games in the past 12 months and the primary outcome | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Spearman correlation Frequency of playing within the past 12 months: never; less than once a week; once per week; more than once per week; daily |
| The correlation between how often participants have played virtual reality video games between the ages of 6 and 18 and the primary outcome | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Spearman correlation Frequency of playing at the age of 6 to 18: never; less than once a week; once per week; more than once per week; daily |
| The correlation between how often participants have played non-virtual-reality video games in the past 12 months and the primary outcome | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Spearman correlation Frequency of playing within the past 12 months: never; less than once a week; once per week; more than once per week; daily |
| The correlation between how often participants have played non-virtual-reality video games between the ages of 6 and 18 and the primary outcome | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Spearman correlation Frequency of playing at the age of 6 to 18: never; less than once a week; once per week; more than once per week; daily |
| Incidence rate of virtual reality related adverse events | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | Incidence of nausea, vomiting, dizziness, headache, overexertion/fatigue of the eyes (discomfort, blurred vision), stumbling, falling, bumping into real world objects while using virtual reality |
| System usability score for use of VR simulations | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | System Usability Scale score from 1 to 100 points |
| Adjective Rating Scale for the use of the virtual reality simulations | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | 7-point Likert scale 1 - the worst thing you can imagine; 2 - terrible; 3 - poor; 4 - okay; 5 - good; 6 - excellent; 7 - the best thing you can imagine |
| Participants' subjective impressions of their level of frustration when using virtual reality/e-learning | evaluation within 4 weeks after study completion | 5-point Likert scale 1 - not frustrated at all; 2 - rather not frustrated; 3 - neither frustrated nor not frustrated; 4 - rather frustrated; 5 - very frustrated |
Countries
Austria
Outcome results
None listed