1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Using Virtual Reality in Biomedical Engineering Education

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study explored virtual reality (VR) as an educational tool to offer immersive and experiential learning environments to biomedical engineering (BME) students. VR and traditional two-dimensional (2D) videos were created and used to teach required communication skills to BME students' while working with clinical partners in healthcare settings. The videos of interdisciplinary teams (engineering and nursing students) tackling medical device-related problems, similar to those commonly observed in healthcare settings, were shown to BME students. Student surveys indicated that, through VR videos, they felt more immersed in real-world clinical scenarios while learning about the clinical problems, each team-member's areas of expertise, their roles and responsibilities, and how an interdisciplinary team operated collectively to solve a problem in the presented settings. Students with a prior in-person immersion experience, in the presented settings, reported VR videos to serve as a possible alternative to in-person immersion and a useful tool for their preparedness for real-world clinical immersion. We concluded that VR holds promise as an educational tool to offer simulated clinical scenarios that are effective in training BME students for interprofessional collaborations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A Survey of Augmented Reality

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Using simulation to instruct emergency medicine residents in cognitive forcing strategies.

            Recent literature defines certain cognitive errors that emergency physicians will likely encounter. The authors have utilized simulation and debriefing to teach the concepts of metacognition and error avoidance. The authors conducted a qualitative study of an educational intervention at Lehigh Valley Hospital during academic year 2002-03. Fifteen emergency medicine residents--eight from postgraduate year three (PGY3) and seven from postgraduate year two (PGY2)--experienced a difficult simulator lab scenario designed to lead them into a cognitive error trap. The debriefing was a PowerPoint with audio format CD-ROM with a didactic on succinylcholine (15 minutes) and cognitive forcing strategies (30 minutes). After debriefing, residents were interviewed by an ethnographer with an 11-question (15-minute) interview and completed an eight-question written survey. The residents ranked this experience second only to direct patient care for educational effectiveness. Survey results (Likert scale, 1 = disagree completely to 5 = agree completely) included "Improved my ability to use succinylcholine" (mean = 4.73), "Improved my ability to diagnose and treat hyperkalemia" (mean = 4.6), and "Cognitive forcing strategies is a useful educational effort" (mean = 4.33). The major interview themes that evolved were that the simulation lab was a positive experience; succinylcholine knowledge was gained; mistakes caused reflection/motivation; the lab was stressful; attending feedback was desired; the lab was realistic; and cognitive forcing strategies were discussed. When asked what they learned, more of the PGY3s commented on cognitive strategies or heuristic techniques (six out of eight), whereas the PGY2s commented on knowledge gained about succinylcholine (five out of seven) and only one PGY2 mentioned cognitive strategies. Pilot data suggest that metacognitive strategies can be taught to residents, though they may be better understood by upper-level residents.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The validity of performance assessments using simulation.

              The authors wished to determine whether a simulator-based evaluation technique assessing clinical performance could demonstrate construct validity and determine the subjects' perception of realism of the evaluation process. Research ethics board approval and informed consent were obtained. Subjects were 33 university-based anesthesiologists, 46 community-based anesthesiologists, 23 final-year anesthesiology residents, and 37 final-year medical students. The simulation involved patient evaluation, induction, and maintenance of anesthesia. Each problem was scored as follows: no response to the problem, score = 0; compensating intervention, score = 1; and corrective treatment, score = 2. Examples of problems included atelectasis, coronary ischemia, and hypothermia. After the simulation, participants rated the realism of their experience on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS). After testing for internal consistency, a seven-item scenario remained. The mean proportion scoring correct answers (out of 7) for each group was as follows: university-based anesthesiologists = 0.53, community-based anesthesiologists = 0.38, residents = 0.54, and medical students = 0.15. The overall group differences were significant (P < 0.0001). The overall realism VAS score was 7.8. There was no relation between the simulator score and the realism VAS (R = -0.07, P = 0.41). The simulation-based evaluation method was able to discriminate between practice categories, demonstrating construct validity. Subjects rated the realism of the test scenario highly, suggesting that familiarity or comfort with the simulation environment had little or no effect on performance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
                ASME International
                0148-0731
                1528-8951
                November 01 2020
                November 01 2020
                September 11 2020
                : 142
                : 11
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering, Widener University, Chester, PA 19063
                [2 ]School of Nursing, Widener University, Chester, PA 19013
                [3 ]College of Nursing and Health Professions, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19102
                [4 ]School of Biomedical Engineering, Sciences and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104
                Article
                10.1115/1.4048005
                © 2020

                Comments

                Comment on this article