■美国的医学生必须在毕业前表现出紧急和紧急护理能力。紧急和紧急护理能力包括识别,评估和启动不稳定患者的管理。高保真(HF)模拟可以提高紧急和紧急护理技能,但是因为它是资源密集型的,需要替代方法。
我们的主要目的是使用程序评估来比较医学生的经验与HF和虚拟现实(VR)模拟作为紧急和紧急护理技能的评估平台。
■在他们担任急诊医学书记期间,俄亥俄州立大学医学院的学生必须在HF人体模型上进行演示,识别和启动需要紧急或紧急护理的患者的能力。学生以五点质量量表评估了这些模拟,并回答了有关模拟优势和劣势的开放式问题。教师提供了有关学生提供紧急或紧急护理能力的反馈。2022年,我们推出了VR作为替代评估平台。我们使用Wilcoxon签名排名和箱线图来比较HF与VR和McNemar测试的等级,以比较能力等级。使用总结性内容分析或主题编码对评论进行了分析。
■我们收到了来自216名急诊医学专业学生中的160名(74.1%)的至少一项评估调查。我们能够为完成这两个项目的学生匹配216个评估调查中的125个(57.9%)。HF模拟的平均评级为5分之4.6,而VR模拟的评级略低,为4.4。评论表明,来自两个模拟平台的反馈都很有价值。学生们将VR描述为小说,身临其境,为临床实践做好准备。建设性的批评认为需要在VR环境中进行额外的实践。平台之间的学生表现显着不同,91.7%的学生达到HF的能力,但VR仅为65.5%(p≤.001,比值比=5.75)。
■VR模拟功能类似于HF,用于紧急和紧急护理能力的形成性评估。然而,必须谨慎考虑使用VR模拟对紧急和紧急护理能力进行总结性评估,因为学生需要大量的练习和适应虚拟环境。
医学生发现在形成性评估安排中使用虚拟现实模拟作为实践和反馈平台的价值。学生将虚拟现实模拟描述为沉浸式和良好的临床实践准备。技术困难很常见,学生适应和学习如何在虚拟环境中发挥作用的学习曲线值得注意。
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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 (p≤.001, odds-ratio = 5.75).
UNASSIGNED: 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.
Medical students found value in using virtual reality simulation as a platform for practice and feedback in a formative assessment arrangement.Students described the virtual reality simulation as immersive and good preparation for clinical practice.Technical difficulties were common and the student learning curve for acclimating and learning how to function in the virtual environment was noteworthy.