Next Article in Journal
Normative Values and Psychometric Properties of EQ-5D-Y-3L in Chilean Youth Population among Different Weight Statuses
Previous Article in Journal
Endovascular Intervention for Aortic Dissection Is “Ascending”
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 5
10.3390/ijerph20054095
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Efficacy of Virtual Reality Simulation in Teaching Basic Life Support and Its Retention at 6 Months

by
Jordi Castillo
,
Encarna Rodríguez-Higueras
*,
Ricardo Belmonte
,
Carmen Rodríguez
,
Alejandro López
and
Alberto Gallart
Departament Infermeria, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC), Sant Cugat del Vallès, 08195 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(5), 4095; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054095
Submission received: 6 January 2023 / Revised: 11 February 2023 / Accepted: 20 February 2023 / Published: 24 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Audiovisual Content Creation and Clinical Simulation in Health Learning Environments)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Educational efficiency is the predetermining factor for increasing the survival rate of patients with cardiac arrest. Virtual reality (VR) simulation could help to improve the skills of those undergoing basic life support–automated external defibrillation (BLS–AED) training. Our purpose was to evaluate whether BLS–AED with virtual reality improves the skills and satisfaction of students enrolled in in-person training after completing the course and their retention of those skills 6 months later. This was an experimental study of first-year university students from a school of health sciences. We compared traditional training (control group—CG) with virtual reality simulation (experimental group—EG). The students were evaluated using a simulated case with three validated instruments after the completion of training and at 6 months. A total of 241 students participated in the study. After the training period, there were no statistically significant differences in knowledge evaluation or in practical skills when assessed using a feedback mannequin. Statistically significant results on defibrillation were poorer in the EG evaluated by the instructor. Retention at 6 months decreased significantly in both groups. The results of the teaching methodology using VR were similar to those obtained through traditional methodology: there was an increase in skills after training, and their retention decreased over time. Defibrillation results were better after traditional learning.

1. Introduction

Data from 27 European countries collected in 2016 showed that the incidence of cardiac arrest (CA) ranged between 19 and 104 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Although 25% of these patients arrived at the hospital with a pulse, only 10.3% survived 30 days after hospital discharge. CA continues to be a large public health problem [1].
Although the population is becoming increasingly aware of and trained in basic life support (BLS) and the use of an automated external defibrillator (AED), fewer than half of cardiac arrests are attended by eyewitnesses and only a minority of CA cases receive adequate application of these techniques from first responders. Cheng et al. [2] suggested a deepening of educational efficiency and its implementation in the general population, especially in students and basic education centers, relatives of those at risk of CA, etc. This is one of the predetermining factors for increasing patient survival rates. In the same sense, a group of experts of the American Heart Association (AHA) concluded that one of the limitations of the 2015 guidelines [3] was the scarce optimization of educational strategies, and this gap continues in 2021 [4].
From the current educational strategies in teaching BLS–AED to traditional training with an instructor as a model, recently, alternative options (mixed or online) have emerged [5], with controversial results due to the progressive decline of knowledge and skills [6] resulting in suboptimal clinical care and poor survival outcomes [2]. It is important to develop new teaching techniques to update and maintain knowledge and skills in BLS–AED [7]. Virtual reality (VR) is one such option, with numerous publications since 2014 related to the training in BLS–AED [8], most of which are focused on student satisfaction [9], as well as instructors [10,11] or observational studies [12].
The evaluation of new educational techniques must also include the economic costs, the simplification of equipment, student facilities, especially those related to updating and maintaining knowledge, and finally the improvement in clinical practice with a reduction in morbimortality.
For VR to be introduced and recommended as a teaching methodology, its effectiveness must be validated. The main objective of our study was to evaluate whether training in BLS–AED with VR improves the skills and satisfaction of health sciences students with respect to traditional training immediately after the course and their retention at 6 months.

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted an experimental study of teaching innovation in BLS–AED that compared the results between a control group, CG (traditional training), and an experimental group, VG (training with VR). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University.
The population consisted of first-year university students from the School of Health Sciences (Medicine, Nursing and Psychology) in the 2020–2021 academic year.
A representative sample presented with “non-inferiority analysis” and was obtained from the study conducted by the same group of researchers to compare 2 teaching methodologies in BLS–AED [13], where a minimum of 40 students per group was sufficient to obtain conclusive results after the training and at 6 months.
Students who had attended a BLS course in the last 3 years or did not sign the informed consent form were excluded. The students were randomized with QuickCalcs software (https://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/ accessed on 6 September 2020).
The experimental and traditional training randomized groups received official training from the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) based on a 4-step methodology [14] of 4 teaching hours modified by the training recommendations of the COVID-19 pandemic (avoid forehead–chin maneuver and approach to assess breathing, and minimize the risk of infection by placing a cloth or towel over the mouth of the mannequin before performing chest compressions and defibrillation) [15].
The classrooms were large, well ventilated and adequately disinfected before and after the training. The instructor–student ratio was 1:6. Each student worked with a Little Anne Laerdal® (Laerdal, Madrid, Spain) mannequin with feedback.
The outline of the course is shown in Table 1. For the integrated simulations, 6 cases were used that were completely solved on an individual basis in a 15 min period. The rest of the students observed the performance of their classmates or practiced on their own mannequins.
The two groups received the same training, with the only difference being that the integrated simulations were performed in the virtual group with the help of VR. The SVB-AED training tool in VR was developed by the company LUDUS® under scientific supervision. Designed and implemented for use in VR, the application allows interaction with the 3D virtual environment with six degrees of freedom (6DoF). The interaction with the tangible elements of the virtual environment is performed with “leap motion”, technology that monitors the movement of the hands. The software is compatible with HTC Vive PRO and Cosmos; Oculus Rift; and HP Reverb. The instructor began by explaining the use of the platform, the placement of the glasses, the permitted movements and the environment. The software contains six scenarios (one per student, identical to the CG), and once explained by the instructor, all students could perform BLS maneuvers on their mannequin or watch their classmate using VR complete the maneuver on a big screen. The simulation ended with a structured debriefing [16,17]. Each simulation lasted 15 min.
Prior to the course, students completed a sociodemographic questionnaire (age, sex, faculty, etc.), estimating their knowledge and skills in BLS–AED prior to training, self-assessed with a Likert scale of 0–10 and their impression of the training ability of the course. To assess the degree of satisfaction with the course, a 10-item questionnaire with a Likert scale (0–10) was created, including an open-ended question to determine students’ opinions of the new training methodology.
The students were evaluated through a simulated case using 3 instruments after the training and after 6 months:
  • For the evaluation of theoretical knowledge, a multiple-choice question (MCQ) was used by the local scientific society which provides accreditation to students participating in BLS courses. This MCQ is used in different published articles [13,18].
  • For the evaluation of practical skills, which was conducted by the instructor, a validated grid was used in the process of publication with acceptable psychometric properties (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.72 and a KMO statistic value of 0.719) to score the practical skills using the BLS–AED algorithm. This grid was adapted to the pandemic situation, replacing the assessment of “see, hear and feel breathing” with the following variables: Put the hand on the patient’s thorax, turn the victim’s head and cover their mouth with a handkerchief (the maximum score is 16 points and the minimum is 0 points).
  • For the evaluation of technical skills, the data monitored by the intelligent QCPR mannequin from Laerdal® on quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were used (the software was configured to evaluate only chest compressions for 2 min).
The qualitative variables are presented as absolute frequencies (n) and percentages (%), and the quantitative variables are presented as the mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and quartile interval (QI). For the statistical comparison between groups, Student’s t-test (for independent data) or Mann–Whitney U tests were used according to the normality of quantitative variables, whereas the chi-squared test was used for qualitative variables. For the comparison of means between the values obtained at the end of the course and at 6 months, Student’s t-test was used for paired data. The data were converted to a scale from 0 to 10 to facilitate their interpretation. Statistically significant differences were p-values equal to or less than 0.05. For the statistical analysis, the software SPSS for Windows version 18 was used.

3. Results

A total of 241 students participated in the study. The sociodemographic, academic and perception variables were homogeneously distributed throughout the two groups (Table 2).
After the training, there were no statistically significant differences in the evaluation of knowledge or in the practical skills evaluated by the mannequin (Table 3). When breaking down these data, this was observed (Table 4).
Competency retention at six months decreased significantly in each of the evaluations performed (Table 3 and Table 4) by values of around 1.5 points out of 10 in theoretical knowledge and practical skills and by more than 10 out of 100 in the overall score calculated by the intelligent dummy. At 6 months, global knowledge and skill scores were similar between the two groups. The only statistically significant value between the two groups was found in the correct position of the hands, evaluated by the smart mannequin, which was higher in the CG (Table 3).
The qualitative satisfaction measurement yields a similar score, with an average of 9.56 points for the 10 questions between the two groups, without significant differences between them (p = 0.99). One hundred percent of the VG commented that VR was a very good training tool, and the open comments organized and grouped: emotional realism (30%), scenic realism (34%) and improvement in teaching methodology (found in 31% of the answers).

4. Discussion

Since the 1990s, an explosion in the application of virtual environments and related technologies has occurred throughout the healthcare field. Applications of these technologies are being implemented in the following areas: surgical procedures (remote surgery or telepresence, planning and simulation of procedures before surgery), medical therapy, preventive medicine and patient education and medical education and training. Such applications have improved the quality of healthcare, and in the future, they will result in substantial cost savings [4].
Virtual worlds enable the inclusion and practice of activities for experiential learning and the simulation and modeling of complex scenarios, providing opportunities for collaboration and co-creation that cannot easily be experienced through other platforms [12].
Responding to an emergency situation such as a cardiac arrest requires widespread training in BLS–AED for the entire population, especially first responders, relatives of at-risk patients, police officers, firefighters, etc. VR makes scenario creation and collaboration easier and, in the short term, will reduce costs.
Although international guides continue to support traditional face-to-face training in BLS–AED [4], they are beginning to recommend alternative training methodologies such as virtual learning [13], self-training [19], peer tutoring [20], gaming [21] and, over the last decade, VR, the use of which increased due to the recent pandemic [5]. Since the first publications of Sameraro et al. [11], different European organizations have used VR in training and have published their results [22,23,24], although most of the published studies are heterogeneous, with observational designs [12,13].
Our study has the strength of working with a homogeneous and representative sample throughout the study (maintaining a minimum of 40 participants per group at six months), with validated data collection instruments and with a follow-up over time.
In addition, it integrates VR within the traditional classroom methodology (for the VG), using the teaching methodology endorsed by the ERC [14] in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of VR. The articles found are heterogeneous in terms of the teaching methodology used, comparing 20 min of VR training with the same amount of face-to-face time [24,25] and another 35 min of VR [26], making it difficult to compare teaching methodologies. Others interpret VR exclusively as online training [5] without comparison between groups. Regardless of the optimal duration, in our opinion, the most important thing is that the system manages to motivate the student, capture their attention and improve their learning [27].
The objective evaluation of skills acquired during training is also heterogeneous in the literature: some use MCQ [11,28], whereas others use mannequin data [23,24], and still others use Likert-type scales to evaluate satisfaction [12]. However, none of them use all the current tools (objective and validated) to ensure the competence of the students in BLS–AED.
After training, knowledge from VR was similar to that obtained from traditional training [8.21 (1.41) vs. 8.44 (1.65); p = 0.24], with an improvement after training in both groups similar to other “blended” methodologies [13] used in the literature. We can confirm that VR has no influence on the acquisition of knowledge in BLS–AED.
In the skills evaluated by the mannequin, no significant differences were observed between the two groups [67.86 (24.99) vs. 64.54 (28.85); p = 0.34]. However, we obtained depth compression results 0.5 mm lower than those obtained in the study by Beom et al. [29] in both groups. Their study was aimed at professional ambulance technicians, which could explain this difference. On the other hand, skills evaluated by the instructor during the simulated case were statistically better after training in the CG [9.10 (1.2) vs. 8.61 (1.48); p = 0.05], mainly influenced by the item “Safe Discharge”. We believe that these isolated data have little value both in this study and in the clinic.
The satisfaction obtained in this study is similar to that found in the literature but grouped into three large blocks: the scenic realism that it offers [9] with statements such as, “I think that VR brings that sensation of feeling that it is happening to you” and “It brings an experience, since it is as if you lived the case without imagining it”; realism or emotional security [28], with statements such as, “It provides the assurance that you will know how to react in a similar situation”; or how to improve the teaching methodology [30] with statements such as, “More effective learning” and “You feel much more effective, I think that it is the part in which you learn the most”. We believe that VR is capable of taking a qualitative leap in the training of BLS–AED. We believe that simulation is a good tool which allows students to acquire and practice skills without risk of injury or harm to the patient [31]. However, we question whether it is capable of generating the stress and emotional burden that VR produces in these cases [28]. Although we did not conduct a survey on instructors’ satisfaction and opinion with regard to VR, all of them believe that any initiative to improve the satisfaction and motivation of the students should be introduced, to the greatest extent possible, within the training in BLS–AED.
Like Smith and Hamilton [32], who support the use of VR simulation as a supplemental tool for teaching students, we consider that VR simulation is a BLS–AED teaching method with similar results compared to traditional face-to-face training. Regardless, Cerezo et al. [27] found that the results are discreetly better. We believe, however, that it provides emotional, situational and reality qualities that no other methodology provides and should be introduced for future generations, in training aimed at teenagers and the general population.
It should be noted that VR training in BLS–AED is still in need of improvement; therefore, it is necessary to dedicate time to the students to explain the operation of the actions that must be carried out for the student to become used to the format. The adaptation to glasses was not well tolerated by all students (in our study, four students became dizzy when using VR), so we think that it is necessary that an instructor trained in VR be dedicated exclusively to students who perform this training and that another instructor is needed to guide the rest of the students. The dynamism of the class could be increased by providing more than one set of VR glasses. Both solutions increase the costs of the courses.
Much more development of technology is needed, not only in terms of cabling, hardware, etc., but also to allow more space for student movement, ensuring that the environment is dynamic (in our case, the AED always appeared behind the virtual element that interacted to save the victim, generating distortion. We believe that this is the reason why there is a difference from the control group) and that the people who appear in action interact with each other and the resuscitator to achieve greater realism and participation [23].
VR must be able to immediately evaluate the student without an instructor’s input. The software itself must have a training mode and an evaluation mode.
In addition to improvements in educational performance, it is necessary to demonstrate that these new teaching initiatives are effective in the clinical field. This could be a future research direction.
Six months after the course, the three overall evaluations decreased substantially with respect to the evaluation performed after the training. We have not found articles that measure retention with the use of VR, although this trend is similar to the published literature comparing other methodologies [13]. The introduction of VR did not improve the retention of skills in BLS–AED over time, and hand position was significantly different in the CG [96.38 (16.2) vs. 91.7 (25.3): p = 0.02] when we further examined the evaluation performed by the mannequin. These data were excellent in both groups (greater than 90%).
We must continue to search for a method that obtains more sustained retention over time in this discipline, with VR being a good tool for refresher courses. New technologies, which are accessible to the majority of the population, have great potential to provide society with fast, easy and accessible CPR training that can be performed at home at a low cost [24]. As Semeraro et al. [23] argue, we believe that VR in BLS–AED is a valid and acceptable tool for training programs aimed at general populations, schoolchildren and health professionals, with a gaming approach that is very useful for refreshing knowledge.

5. Conclusions

The results of the teaching methodology with VR are similar to those of the traditional methodology: there is an increase in competency after training, and its retention decreases over time.
VR has similar results to the integrated simulations within a standard BLS–AED course.
VR technology has room for improvement, and we hope that it will be part of the training in BLS–AED as another tool in the immediate future.

Author Contributions

J.C.: Term, Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review and Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. E.R.-H.: Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review and Editing. R.B.: Term, Conceptualization, Software, Validation, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. C.R.: Term, Conceptualization, Software, Validation, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. A.L.: Term, Conceptualization, Software, Validation, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. A.G.: Term, Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review and Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee and Research of Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (CODE INF-2020-07; Date of approval: 10 July 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

No new date base was created.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gräsner, J.-T.; Lefering, R.; Koster, R.W.; Masterson, S.; Böttiger, B.W.; Herlitz, J.; Wnent, J.; Tjelmeland, I.B.; Ortiz, F.R.; Maurer, H.; et al. EuReCa ONE⿿27 Nations, ONE Europe, ONE Registry: A prospective one month analysis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes in 27 countries in Europe. Resuscitation 2016, 105, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Cheng, A.; Nadkarni, V.M.; Mancini, M.B.; Hunt, E.A.; Sinz, E.H.; Merchant, S.R.M.; Donoghue, A.; Duff, J.P.; Eppich, W.; Auerbach, M.; et al. Resuscitation Education Science: Educational Strategies to Improve Outcomes from Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2018, 138, e82–e122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bhanji, F.; Finn, J.C.; Lockey, A.; Monsieurs, K.; Frengley, R.; Iwami, T.; Lang, E.; Ma, M.H.-M.; Mancini, M.E.; McNeil, M.A.; et al. Part 8: Education, implementation, and teams: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations. Circulation 2015, 132 (Suppl. 1), S242–S268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Greif, R.; Lockey, A.; Breckwoldt, J.; Carmona, F.; Conaghan, P.; Kuzovlev, A.; Pflanzl-Knizacek, L.; Sari, F.; Shammet, S.; Scapigliati, A.; et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Education for resuscitation. Resuscitation 2021, 161, 388–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ali, D.M.; Hisam, B.; Shaukat, N.; Baig, N.; Ong, M.E.H.; Epstein, J.L.; Goralnick, E.; Kivela, P.D.; McNally, B.; Razzak, J. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training strategies in the times of COVID-19: A systematic literature review comparing different training methodologies. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 2021, 29, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Castillo, J.; Arbonés, D.; Belmonte, R.; Rodríguez, E. Retención en los primeros meses después de un curso de las habilidades en soporte vital básico. Aten. Primaria 2021, 53, 101973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cheng, A.; Magid, D.J.; Auerbach, M.; Bhanji, F.; Bigham, B.L.; Blewer, A.L.; Dainty, K.N.; Diederich, E.; Lin, Y.; Leary, M.; et al. Part 6: Resuscitation Education Science: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2020, 142, S551–S579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kuyt, K.; Park, S.-H.; Chang, T.P.; MacKinnon, R. The use of virtual reality and augmented reality to enhance cardio-pulmonary resuscitation: A scoping review. Adv. Simul. 2021, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bench, S.; Winter, C.; Francis, G. Use of a Virtual Reality Device for Basic Life Support Training. Prototype Testing and an Exploration of Users’ Views and Experience. Simul. Healthc. 2019, 14, 287–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wong, M.A.M.E.; Chue, S.; Jong, M.; Benny, H.W.K.; Zary, N. Clinical instructors’ perceptions of virtual reality in health professionals’ cardiopulmonary resuscitation education. SAGE Open Med. 2018, 17, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Semeraro, F.; Frisoli, A.; Bergamasco, M.; Cerchiari, E.L. Virtual reality enhanced mannequin (VREM) that is well received by resuscitation experts. Resuscitation 2009, 80, 489–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Leary, M.; Almodovar, A.; Buckler, D.G.; Bhardwaj, A.; Blewer, A.L.; Abella, B.S. Using an Immersive Virtual Reality System to Assess Lay Provider Response to an Unannounced Simulated Sudden Cardiac Arrest in the Out-of-Hospital Setting. Simul. Heathc. 2019, 14, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Castillo, J.; Gallart, A.; Rodríguez, E.; Castillo, J.; Gomar, C. Basic life support and external defibrillation competences after instruction and at 6 months comparing face-to-face and blended training. Randomized trial. Nurse Educ. Today 2018, 65, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Greif, R.; Egger, L.; Basciani, R.M.; Vogt, A. Emergency skill training—A randomized controlled study on the effectiveness of the 4-stage approach compared to traditional clinical teaching. Resuscitation 2010, 81, 1692–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Nolan, J.; Monsieurs, K.; Bossaert, L.; Böttiger, B.; Greif, R.; Lott, C.; Madar, J.; Olasveengen, T.; Roehr, C.; Semeraro, F.; et al. European Resuscitation Council COVID-19 guidelines executive summary. Resuscitation 2020, 153, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Shinnick, M.A.; Woo, M.; Horwich, T.B.; Steadman, R. Debriefing: The Most Important Component in Simulation? Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2011, 7, e105–e111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kolbe, M.; Grande, B.; Spahn, D.R. Briefing and debriefing during simulation-based training and beyond: Content, structure, attitude and setting. Best Prac. Res. Clin. Anaesthesiol. 2015, 29, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Castillo, J.; Cerdà, M.; de Balanzo, X.; Ferres, E.; Rodríguez, E. Estudio experimental aleatorizado de innovación docente que compara metodología mixta frente a presencial para la formación en soporte vital básico estándar del European Resuscitation Council. Emergencias 2020, 32, 45–48. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bylow, H.; Karlsson, T.; Claesson, A.; Lepp, M.; Lindqvist, J.; Herlitz, J. Self-learning training versus instructor-led training for basic life support: A cluster randomised trial. Resuscitation 2019, 139, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Harvey, P.; Higenbottam, C.; Owen, A.; Bion, J. Peer-led training and assessment in basic life support for healthcare students: Synthesis of literature review and fifteen years practical experience. Resuscitation 2012, 83, 894–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. van Gaalen, A.E.J.; Brouwer, J.; Schönrock-Adema, J.; Bouwkamp-Timmer, T.; Jaarsma, A.D.C.; Georgiadis, J.R. Gamification of health professions education: A systematic review. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 2021, 26, 683–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Semeraro, F.; Scapigliati, A.; Ristagno, G.; Luciani, A.; Gandolfi, S.; Lockey, A.; Müller, M.P.; Wingen, S.; Böttiger, B.W. Virtual Reality for CPR training: How cool is that? Dedicated to the “next generation”. Resuscitation 2017, 121, e1–e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Semeraro, F.; Ristagno, G.; Giulini, G.; Gnudi, T.; Kayal, J.S.; Monesi, A.; Tucci, R.; Scapigliati, A. Virtual reality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): Comparison with a standard CPR training mannequin. Resuscitation 2019, 135, 234–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Nas, J.; Thannhauser, J.; Vart, P.; Van Geuns, R.-J.; Van Royen, N.; Bonnes, J.L.; Brouwer, M.A. Rationale and design of the Lowlands Saves Lives trial: A randomised trial to compare CPR quality and long-term attitude towards CPR performance between face-to-face and virtual reality training with the Lifesaver VR app. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e033648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nas, J.; Thannhauser, J.; Geuns, R.J.M.; van Royen, N.; Brouwer, M.A. Optimal Combination of Chest Compression Depth and Rate in Virtual Reality Resuscitation Training: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Randomized Lowlands Saves Lives Trial. J. Am. Hear. Assoc. 2021, 10, e017367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Issleib, M.; Kromer, A.; Pinnschmidt, H.O.; Süss-Havemann, C.; Kubitz, J.C. Virtual reality as a teaching method for resuscitation training in undergraduate first year medical students: A randomized controlled trial. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 2021, 29, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cerezo, C.; Segura, F.; Melendreras, R.; García-Collado, A.J.; Nieto, S.; Juguera, L.; Pardo, M. La realidad virtual como método de enseñanza de la reanimación cardiopulmonar: Un estudio aleatorizado. Emergencias 2019, 31, 43–46. [Google Scholar]
  28. Buckler, D.G.; Almodovar, A.; Snobelen, P.; Abella, B.S.; Blewer, A.; Leary, M. Observing the stages of bystander intervention in virtual reality simulation. World J. Emerg. Med. 2019, 10, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Beom, J.H.; Kim, M.J.; You, J.S.; Lee, H.S.; Kim, J.H.; Park, Y.S.; Shin, D.M.; Chung, H.S. Evaluation of the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation according to vehicle driving pattern, using a virtual reality ambulance driving system: A prospective, cross-over, randomised study. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e023784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Semeraro, F.; Ristagno, G.; Giulini, G.; Kayal, J.S.; Cavallo, P.; Farabegoli, L.; Tucci, R.; Scelsi, S.; Grieco, N.B.; Scapigliati, A. Back to reality: A new blended pilot course of Basic Life Support with Virtual Reality. Resuscitation 2019, 138, 18–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mundell, W.; Kennedy, C.; Szostek, J.; Cook, D.A. Simulation technology for resuscitation training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation 2013, 84, 1174–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Smith, P.C.; Hamilton, B.K. The Effects of Virtual Reality Simulation as a Teaching Strategy for Skills Preparation in Nursing Students. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2015, 11, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Training in traditional BLS–AED or with virtual reality.
Table 1. Training in traditional BLS–AED or with virtual reality.
ERC Standard CourseVirtual Reality Course
TIMEReading the manual
2 h15 minPresentation 15 min
15 minDemonstration 15 min
90 minBLS–AED practice. Skills 4 stages.
2 h90 minIntegrated simulationsVirtual reality simulations
15 minRP and FBAO
15 minPractical and theoretical evaluation
ERC; European Resuscitation Council; BLS–AED: basic life support–automated external defibrillation; RP: recovery position; FBAO: foreign body airway obstruction.
Table
Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants.
Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants.
Age (years)CG (n = 116)EG (n = 125)p
19.84 (4.99)19.21 (2.49)0.23
SexFemale91 (78.4%)89 (71.2%)0.22
Male25 (21.5%)36 (28.8%)
FacultyNursing47 (40.5%)48 (38.4%)0.73
Medicine46 (39.7%)47 (37.6%)
Psychology23 (19.8%)30 (24%)
Weight (kg)60.8 (10.78)59.1 (12.01)0.26
Height (cm)162.28 (29.26)167.93 (14.56)0.87
Knowledge perception (0–10)6.44 (1.64)6.33 (1.66)0.61
Skills perception (0–10)5.34 (1.95)5.1 (2)0.36
Course learning1 (0)0.98 (0.15)0.09
CG: control group (traditional training); EG: experimental group (virtual reality simulation).
Table
Table 3. Evaluation of knowledge and skills before and after the course and retention at 6 months.
Table 3. Evaluation of knowledge and skills before and after the course and retention at 6 months.
At Course CompletionAt 6 Months
CG (n = 116)EG (n = 125)pCG (n = 56) EG (n = 64)p
Knowledge
MCQ (0–10)8.21 (1.41)8.44 (1.65)0.246.55 (1.56)6.42 (1.54)0.75
Skills instructor
Overall Score (0–10)9.10 (1.2)8.61 (1.48)0.056.23 (2.09)6.25 (2.14)0.46
Skills Mannequin
Overall Score (%)67.86 (24.99)64.54 (28.85)0.3453.7 (32.19)49.66 (36.7)0.13
Correct hand positioning (%)97.73 (11.03)97.68 (9.94)0.9796.38 (16.2)91.7 (25.3)0.02
Median depth (mm)47.1 (7.27)45.98 (7.70)0.2444.71 (8.86)42.66 (9.73)0.33
Complete re-expansion (%)70.52 (34.06)71.56 (32.28)0.879.53 (33.49)77.26 (29.61)0.57
Correct compressions (%)43.4 (35.99)41.14 (34.66)0.6235.04 (37.79)32 (34.16)0.86
Frequency 100–120 (%)61.86 (30.6)60.33 (34.94)0.7152.18 (35.84)50.12 (36.34)0.86
CG: control group (traditional training); EG: experimental group (reality virtual simulation); MCQ: multiple choice question p-values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant. Significant values are highlighted in bold.
Table
Table 4. Values obtained from the practical evaluation by the instructors.
Table 4. Values obtained from the practical evaluation by the instructors.
After Training6 Months after Training
CG
(n = 116)		EG (n = 125)pCG (n = 56)EG (n = 64)p
Assessment of consciousnessNeither shouts nor shakes it3 (2.6%) 9 (7.2%)0.156 (10.7%)6 (9.4%)0.97
Yells or shakes it112 (96.6%)116 (92.8%)18 (32.1%)21 (32.8%)
Yells and shakes it1 (0.9%)0 (0%)32 (57.2%)37 (57.8%)
Assessment of respirationNo hands on thorax or handkerchief in mouth0 (0%)4 (3.2%)0.1328 (50%)27 (42.2%)0.65
Hands on thorax or handkerchief in mouth29 (25%)34 (27.2%)17(30.4%)21 (32.8%)
Hands on thorax and handkerchief in mouth87(75%)87 (69.6%)11 (19.6%)16 (25%)
Respiration assessment time<2 s2 (1.7%)10 (8%)0.0818 (32.1%)31 (48.4%)0.11
>10° < 5 s25 (21.6%)24 (19.2%)23 (41.1%)16 (25%)
Between 5 and 10 s89 (76.7%)91 (72.8%)15 (26.8%)17 (26.6%)
Asks for the AEDYes (at some point)113 (97.4%)116 (92.8%)0.2424 (42.8%)15 (23.5%)0.06
No (at no time)3 (2.6%)9 (7.2%)32 (57.2%)49 (76.5%)
Calls 112Does not call or does not place hands-free device1 (0.9%)3 (2.4%)0.537 (12.5%)5 (7.8%)0.14
Calls or places hands-free device7 (6%)10 (8%)2 (7.8%)0 (0%)
Calls and places hands-free device108 (93.1%)112 (89.6%)47 (83.9%)59 (92.2%)
AED PadsDoes not place patches according to guidelines2 (1.7%)9 (7.2%)0.113 (23.2%)24 (37.5%)0.06
Does apply patches according to guidelines114 (98.3%)116 (92.8%)43 (76.8%)40 (62.5%)
Safe dischargeDoes not look or verbalize9 (7.8%)19 (15.2%)0.0414 (25%)19 (29.7%)0.84
Verbalizes or looks24 (20.7%)35 (28%)21 (37.5%)23 (35.9%)
Verbalizes and looks83 (71.6%)71 (56.8%)21 (37.5%)22 (34.4%)
Immediate compressionsDoes not compress immediately1 (0.9%)1 (0.8%)0.239 (16.1%)14 (21.9%)0.3
Compresses when indicated by the AED30 (25.9%)45 (36%)35 (62.5%)31 (48.4%)
Compresses before the AED indicates85 (73.3%)79 (63.2%)12 (21.4%)19 (29.7%)
Overall Instructor Note 9.10 (1.2)8.61 (1.48)0.056.23 (2.09)6.25 (2.14)0.46
CG: control group (traditional training); EG: experimental group (reality virtual simulation); AED: automated external defibrillation. p-values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant. Significant values are highlighted in bold.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Castillo, J.; Rodríguez-Higueras, E.; Belmonte, R.; Rodríguez, C.; López, A.; Gallart, A. Efficacy of Virtual Reality Simulation in Teaching Basic Life Support and Its Retention at 6 Months. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 4095. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054095

AMA Style

Castillo J, Rodríguez-Higueras E, Belmonte R, Rodríguez C, López A, Gallart A. Efficacy of Virtual Reality Simulation in Teaching Basic Life Support and Its Retention at 6 Months. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(5):4095. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054095

Chicago/Turabian Style

Castillo, Jordi, Encarna Rodríguez-Higueras, Ricardo Belmonte, Carmen Rodríguez, Alejandro López, and Alberto Gallart. 2023. "Efficacy of Virtual Reality Simulation in Teaching Basic Life Support and Its Retention at 6 Months" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 5: 4095. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054095

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop