Traditional In-Person Vs. Remote AR Clinical Simulation
- 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
- Brazilian resident
- 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
Lucile Parkard Children's Hospital🇺🇸Stanford, California, United States