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

Study Timeline

• Study First Submitted: 2024-03-15
• Study First Submitted QC: 2024-03-15
• Study First Posted: 2024-03-22
• Study Start: 2024-06-22
• Primary Completion: 2024-08-03
• Study Completion: 2024-08-03
• Status Verified: 2025-07
• Last Update Submitted: 2025-07-18
• Last Update Posted: 2025-07-23

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

Name	Time	Method
Evaluation of Technical Skill (TS) and Non Technical Skill (NTS) Performance	immediately 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

Name	Time	Method
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 usability	immediately 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 ergonomics	immediately 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