ArticlePEC innovation2025
User evaluation of a virtual reality simulation for anaesthesiologists-intensivists for non-technical skills.
Article in PEC innovation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Simulation training in medical settings is a cornerstone in medical education to practice technical and non-technical skills. The objective of this study was to evaluate user experiences and initial reactions to a multiplayer virtual reality (VR) simulation designed for anaesthesiologists. Methods: A user-centred design approach guided the development of a VR-scenario training simulating a case of massive blood loss. Seven anaesthesiology residents and trainers from a Dutch academic hospital participated in qualitative and quantitative evaluations. Quantitative measures included questionnaires on presence, agency, physical dyscomfort, and perceived training value. Qualitative data were collected through structured observations and interviews. Results: Participants reported a high sense of physical presence and moderate agency, with lower levels of self-presence. The VR environment was perceived as realistic and engaging. Challenges included unfamiliarity with VR controls, abstract avatars, and limited haptic feedback. Despite these barriers, participants recognized the potential of VR for team-based learning of non-technical skills, especially with prior onboarding or practice sessions. Innovation: This study introduces a novel application of multiplayer VR simulation in anaesthesiology training, focusing on non-technical skills. The integration of user-centred design with qualitative and quantitative evaluation provides insights into the feasibility and acceptability of VR as an educational tool in this context. Conclusions: VR simulation shows promise for training non-technical skills in anaesthesiology. While participants appreciated the realism and collaborative aspects, enhancements in usability and interaction design are necessary for broader implementation and impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.