Effect of Immersive Virtual Reality Teamwork Training on Safety Behaviors During Surgical Cases: Nonrandomized Intervention Versus Controlled Pilot Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Approximately 4000 preventable surgical errors occur per year in the US operating rooms, many due to suboptimal teamwork and safety behaviors. Such errors can result in temporary or permanent harm to patients, including physical injury, emotional distress, or even death, and can also adversely affect care providers, often referred to as the "second victim." Objective: Given the persistence of adverse events in the operating rooms, the objective of this study was to quantify the effect of an innovative and immersive virtual reality (VR)-based educational intervention on (1) safety behaviors of surgeons in the operating rooms and (2) sense-making regarding the overall training experience. Methods: This mixed methods pre- versus postintervention pilot study was conducted in a large academic medical center with 55 operating rooms. Safety behaviors were observed and quantified using validated Teamwork Evaluation of Non-Technical Skills instrument during surgical cases at baseline (101 observations; 83 surgeons) and postimmersive VR based intervention (postintervention: 24 observations within each group; intervention group [with VR training; 10 surgeons] and control [no VR training; 10 surgeons]). VR intervention included a 45-minute immersive VR-based training incorporating a pre- and postdebriefing based on Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety (TeamSTEPPS) principles to improve safety behaviors. A 2-tailed, 2-sample t-test with adjustments for multiplicity of the tests was used to test for significance in observable safety behaviors between the groupings. The debriefing data underwent analysis through the phenomenological analysis method to gain insights into how participants interpreted the training. Results: Preintervention, all safety behaviors averaged slightly above "acceptable" scores, with an overall average of 2.2 (range 2-2.3; 0-3 scale). The 10 surgeons that underwent our intervention showed statistically significant (P<.05) improvements in 90% (18/20) of safety behaviors when compared to the 10 surgeons that did not receive the intervention (overall average 2.5, range 2.3-2.7 vs overall average 2.1, range 1.9-2.2). Our qualitative analysis based on 492 quotes from participants suggests that the observed behavioral changes are a result of an immersive experience and sense-making of key TeamSTEPPS training concepts. Conclusions: VR-based immersive training intervention focused on TeamSTEPPS principles seems effective in improving safety behaviors in the operating rooms as quantified via observations using the Teamwork Evaluation of Non-Technical Skills instrument. Further research with larger, more diverse sample sizes is needed to confirm the generalizability of these findings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».