532 - Virtual Reality Simulation in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Novel Approach to Education and Training

Poster Number: 532
Publication Number: 532.327

Gia Khanh N. Trinh, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Ryan McAdams, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States

Background: Virtual reality (VR) simulation offers an immersive experience by recreating realistic virtual clinical environments. Despite successes in other fields, the use of VR in Neonatology remains limited.

Objective: This study assesses the development and implementation of a VR simulation model at a university-based Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

Design/Methods: In partnership with Arch Virtual, we developed an interactive VR environment on the Acadicus platform, simulating the neonatal resuscitation bay at our main Level III delivery hospital. Individual training sessions were conducted using VR headsets, comprising a platform orientation followed by a simulated resuscitation of a 30-week neonate. A survey, developed in consultation with the University of Wisconsin Survey Center complying with industry best practices, was administered at the end of each session. Feedback obtained from the surveys was used for continuous model improvement. The primary outcome was the attitude toward the model, assessed through four Likert scale questions and free-text comments. Secondary outcomes were familiarity with VR technology, adverse effects of VR usage, and challenges encountered. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to measure the internal consistency of the survey.

Results: We completed 38 one-hour sessions across four cycles following three major model upgrades. We achieved a 100% survey return rate, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.851, representing high internal consistency. Familiarity with VR was low, with 11 participants (28.9%) having prior VR experience. The platform was received with overwhelming positivity, with most participants saying they would try VR simulation again and recommend it to others. Twenty-seven participants (71.1%) found VR provided a more realistic experience than traditional methods (Figure 1). VR usefulness rating breakdown by cycle is shown in Figure 2. Pediatric trainees and mid-level providers, over Neonatologists, favor the VR platform (Figure 3). Adverse effects were reported by 15 participants (39.5%), the most common being eye strain (21.1%), followed by motion-sickness symptoms (18.4%). The main challenges were technical problems, such as equipment failures and unreliable internet connections.

Conclusion(s): Neonatal providers were enthusiastic about the VR platform, especially less experienced providers and trainees. The rate of adverse effects was unexpectedly high, which may be related to the lack of VR familiarity. Further study is needed to assess VR simulation effectiveness. Steps to mitigate the adverse effects should also be considered when conducting future studies.