MedPath

Traditional In-Person Vs. Remote AR Clinical Simulation

Not Applicable
Completed
Conditions
Educational Problems
Registration Number
NCT06326450
Lead Sponsor
Stanford University
Brief Summary

This is a non-inferiority, international, controlled trial that aims to evaluate the progression of physicians and residents through an Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) clinical simulated scenario. The study's primary objective is to compare the performance outcomes between two groups: participants in the traditional in-person simulation and those immersed in the Augmented Reality (AR) scenario

Detailed Description

Not available

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status
COMPLETED
Sex
All
Target Recruitment
42
Inclusion Criteria
  • Brazilian resident
Exclusion Criteria
  • a history of severe motion sickness
  • currently have nausea
  • a history of seizures
  • wear corrective glasses.

Study & Design

Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Design
PARALLEL
Primary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Evaluation of Technical Skill (TS) and Non Technical Skill (NTS) Performanceimmediately after simulation

Measured with Instrument for the evaluation of advanced life support performance. The instrument consists of 26 items, which are rated on a scale from +2 to -2. A total assessment score of performance is given based on a scale from 0 to 10 (0=poor, 10=excellent) at the end of the instrument.

Secondary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Reassessment of Non Technical Skill (NTS) with Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)immediately after simulation

Measured with individual Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS). The BARS scoring system uses four categories assessing situation awareness, decision-making, communication and teamwork. The score ranges from 1 and 9 (1 = poor and 9 = excellent)

Evaluation of the AR system's usabilityimmediately after simulation

Measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS). The scale has 10 items. Scores ranges from 1-5 (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)

Evaluation of the AR system's ergonomicsimmediately after simulation

Measured with the ISO 9241-400 Assessment of human-ergonomic factors. The scale has 6 items. Scores ranges from 1-5 (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Lucile Parkard Children's Hospital

🇺🇸

Stanford, California, United States

Lucile Parkard Children's Hospital
🇺🇸Stanford, California, United States

MedPath

Empowering clinical research with data-driven insights and AI-powered tools.

© 2025 MedPath, Inc. All rights reserved.