Case study of virtual reality sepsis management- instructional design and ITEM outcomes

Figures & data

Figure 1. Mixed reality definition adapted from Migram and Kishino (Jacobs, 2023).

Figure 2. Virtual reality application simulating electrocardiogram lead placement.

Figure 3. Virtual reality application demonstrating clinical observations of a patient with suspected sepsis.

Figure 4. Virtual reality image of venepucture on a patient.

Figure 5. Healthcare professional interfacing with the virtual reality sepsis simulation using Quest 2 system.

Table 1. Immersive Technology Experience Measure (ITEM) results for sepsis virtual reality participant experience.

ITEM Domain	Median Score	Interquartile Range	Median score difference compared with neutral response	Cohen D effect size
Immersion	43.00	41–45	13.5 (p <  0.001)	3.52
Motivation	45.00	44–47	10.5 (p <  0.001)	3.00
Cognitive Load	56.70	53–64	n/a	n/a
System Usability	72.50	63–88	20.6 (p <  0.001)	0.97
Debrief	20.5	19–22	5.5 (p <  0.001)	2.52

Key- n/a = Not applicable, p = p-value

Figure 6. Total immersion and intrinsic motivation scores.

Figure 7. Total cognitive load and system usability scores.

Jacobs, C. (2023). Augmented resuscitation- simulacrum of AR. Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine, 46(1), 51–53. doi:10.1080/17453054.2023.2169111.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar