The effect of immersive versus traditional forms of simulation on ratings of self-perceived performance in second-year paramedicine students

Abstract

Immersive methods of simulation have recently been introduced to undergraduate paramedicine education as an adjunct to traditional simulation that have the purpose of improving outcomes such as performance. However, there is limited research that directly compares immersive and traditional forms of simulation. This study aimed to determine (a) the feasibility of an intensive simulation program comparing traditional and immersive simulation; (b) if one form of simulation provided better self-perceived outcomes; (c) the level of self-perceived performance in students using traditional and immersive simulation; and (d) the sustainability of ratings after a nine-week period. This feasibility study utilised a randomised controlled methodology, allocating second-year paramedicine students (N = 20) to either traditional or immersive simulation. The intervention (immersive) group completed the simulation in the 360-degree projection simulation room, whereas the control (traditional) group completed the simulations in the standard simulation rooms currently used within the practical setting. Ratings were collected using the Seattle University Simulation Evaluation tool (Mikasa et al., 2014) after the first simulation of the three-day program (Rating 1), after the final simulation of the three-day program (Rating 2), and after a nine-week washout period (Rating 3). For the primary outcome of determining if one form of simulation provided greater ratings of self-perceived performance in second-year paramedicine students, an overall statistically significant (p = 0.04) difference in ratings was noted between groups. When observing the effect of a three-day immersive simulation program ( ?? = 15.45) in comparison to a three-day traditional simulation program ( ?? = 15.67), a non-statistically significant difference was noted at Rating 2. In both groups, there was a non-statistically significant improvement between Rating 1 (?? immersive = 11.81; ?? traditional = 13.22) and Rating 2 (?? immersive = 15.45; ?? traditional = 15.67) which was sustained at Rating 3 (?? immersive = 14.09; ?? traditional = 16.00). However, the traditional group reported a mean increase from Rating 2 ( ?? = 15.67) to Rating 3 ( ?? = 16.00) in comparison to a mean decrease between Rating 2 ( ?? = 15.45) and Rating 3 (?? = 14.09) in the immersive group. Differences between Rating 3 in the immersive (?? = 16.00) and traditional (?? = 14.09) groups were statistically significant (p = 0.02). This research project has demonstrated that the methodology was feasible to test these hypotheses and indicates that traditional forms of simulation may result in greater ratings of self-perceived performance.

Date of Award	2023
Original language	English