Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1/2677
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChuan, Alwin-
dc.contributor.authorBogdanovych, Anton-
dc.contributor.authorMoran, Benjamin L-
dc.contributor.authorChowdhury, Supriya-
dc.contributor.authorLim, Yean Chin-
dc.contributor.authorTran, Minh T-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Tsz Yui-
dc.contributor.authorDuong, Jayden-
dc.contributor.authorQian, Jennifer-
dc.contributor.authorBui, Tung-
dc.contributor.authorChua, Alex M H-
dc.contributor.authorJeyaratnam, Bahaven-
dc.contributor.authorSiu, Steven-
dc.contributor.authorTiong, Clement-
dc.contributor.authorMcKendrick, Mel-
dc.contributor.authorMcLeod, Graeme A-
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-04T06:14:16Z-
dc.date.available2024-07-04T06:14:16Z-
dc.date.issued2024-06-17-
dc.identifier.citationOnline ahead of printen
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1/2677-
dc.description.abstractWe 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.en
dc.description.sponsorshipAnaesthesiaen
dc.subjectAnestheticsen
dc.subjectAnaestheticsen
dc.titleUsing Virtual Reality to teach ultrasound-guided needling skills for regional anaesthesia: A randomised controlled trialen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111535en
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38889487en
dc.description.affiliatesCentral Coast Local Health Districten
dc.description.affiliatesGosford Hospitalen
dc.identifier.journaltitleJournal of Clinical Anesthesiaen
dc.type.studyortrialRandomized Controlled Clinical Trial/Controlled Clinical Trialen
dc.type.contentTexten
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
Appears in Collections:Health Service Research
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

36
checked on Nov 9, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


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