Virtual reality in simulation-based emergency skills training: A systematic review with a narrative synthesis

Abstract

Objective: An important role is predicted for virtual reality (VR) in the future of medical education. We performed a systematic review of the literature with a narrative synthesis, to examine the current evidence for VR in simulation-based emergency skills training. We broadly define emergency skills as any clinical skill used in the emergency care of patients across all clinical settings. Methods: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The data sources accessed during this study included: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, EMCARE, HMIC, BNI, PsychINFO, Medline, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, BIOSIS Citation Index, ERIC, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis Global. Cochrane's Rob 2 and ROBVIS tools were used during study quality assessment. No ethical review was required for this work. Results: Thirty-four articles published between 14th March 1998 and 1st March 2022 were included in this review. Studies were predominantly conducted in the USA and Europe and focussed on a variety of healthcare disciplines including medical, nursing, and allied health. VR education was delivered using head-mounted displays, Cave Automatic Virtual Environment systems, and bespoke setups. These systems delivered education in a variety of areas (emergency medicine, equipment training, obstetrics, and basic/advanced life support). Subjective potential advantages of this technology included realism, replayability, and time-effectiveness. Reports of adverse events were low in frequency across the included studies. Whilst clear educational benefit was generally noted, this was not reflected in changes to patient-based outcomes. Conclusion: There may be educational benefit to using VR in the context of simulation-based emergency skills training including knowledge gain and retention, skill performance, acceptability, usability, and validity. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate clear cost-effectiveness, or direct improvement of patient or institutional outcomes, at this stage.