Virtual reality (VR) has been a part of the world since the 1950s but didn’t make its way into commercial video games until the mid-1990s. Since then, VR has exploded into many different uses, not just for gaming but also for learning. During the height of COVID, nursing schools began to find a new method for training their students that did not rely so heavily on traditional bedside experiences. Before the pandemic, only 65% of nursing schools used VR training, but now it has become mainstream 1. There are many reasons for this growth in VR, one of which has to do with the nursing shortage. The United States alone needs 350,000 new nurses to fill direct patient care roles, and that’s a conservative estimate2. How is the industry to train that volume and then retain those nurses once they enter the field? Many believe VR to be a promising tool that will allow for this growth. And while nursing schools are growing their VR labs, TRU Community Care is stepping into the proverbial ring to offer continuity between nursing school education and bedside practice.
TRU Community Care is one of the few hospice organizations that will hire new graduate nurses and support them through their first year of practice with our nurse residency program. Part of that support includes virtual reality simulations, for our own staff along with other new graduates from around the country. The beauty of VR is that the shared lab can be accessed from any location, giving us the opportunity to partner with other organizations. All of TRU’s clinical staff were introduced to VR in 2024, and our use of VR training will continue to grow as an evidence-based tool. There is significant data to back up the use of VR as a superior learning method. From increasing knowledge at a rapid rate to integrating social-emotional memories, VR labs have demonstrated their value in learning. So, let’s take a look at the evidence base.
A study in 2018 by Lamb et al.3 compared VR simulation with using video content and hands-on activities. They measured learning outcomes and neural activation through the different groups. Results found that those in the VR group had better learning outcomes (did better on their test scores) and had higher rates of neural activation during the simulation than those who watched a 2-D video education. The brain activity for those in the VR group during the simulation was equivalent to that experienced by a person doing a hands-on activity. This means that from a neurobiological lens, VR is comparable to actually having the real experience.
As a healthcare educator, I can simulate all kinds of situations and not put a real person at risk of a poor outcome. My students have the chance to think critically, make mistakes, and learn from those mistakes without an adverse event for a live patient. It also allows for situations that students may not encounter by chance during their training. For example, our nurses often want training on attending a death visit in hospice, but death doesn’t always happen when a new nurse is on the clock. With VR, we can simulate a death visit and allow for learning to be just as effective as having had the real experience.
This is the pedagogical rationale behind using VR simulations. Often there is a mismatch between theoretical knowledge about a topic (e.g., the steps to accessing a subcutaneous port) and the procedural knowledge related to the topic (e.g., actually using the port to give medications). Since there is often limited time to train a new nurse (related to the nursing shortage mentioned above), nurses often get one chance to practice the procedure in orientation before being expected to perform it in a competent manner. With VR, we can practice accessing the port over and over until the nurse is confident in their procedural knowledge.
While there are many studies related to this topic, there is one more that is particularly thorough and relevant. Pande et al. explored the long-term effectiveness of VR to get a sense of how VR training sticks with a person, compared to video instruction4. The pre-test given to the two groups (VR group and video group) showed the video group had better pre-knowledge of the topic. After the learning intervention, the first post-test showed the VR group had a slightly higher understanding of the topic. Post-test 2 occurred two days later and showed similar levels of understanding between the groups. The final post-test occurred five days later, and the VR group had retained more of the information. In total, the non-VR group experienced nearly a 10% knowledge increase using video instruction, while the VR group experienced a 30% knowledge increase. This is significant because often students will understand a topic taught but easily forget the information afterward. The saying “live and learn” makes sense here; the experiences you have in life will teach you lessons far faster than hearing someone else tell you about it. This is exactly what VR is tapping into.
The second part of the Pande et al. study was related to the enjoyment of learning. Their students reported more enjoyment in learning using VR than the video group, who reported feelings of boredom. This makes sense; it’s easy to be engaged in learning when you are in the center of the experience, rather than just observing something. If you are interested in this topic, I’d encourage you to read the full study yourself, cited below.
No research is deemed valuable without an honest look at the limitations of what is being studied, and for VR education, the limitation lies in logistics. Software is pricey and hardware is temperamental. Aside from the technology requirements, running a VR simulation requires skilled educators who can run the pre-brief, simulation, and debrief in a way that facilitates learning, allows for mistakes, and encourages the group to critically think through the simulation.
In 2024, TRU Community Care navigated many of these hurdles and is in the process of partnering with other organizations in supporting their new graduate nurses using VR. Our sights are set on developing a VR lab where our clinicians can learn simultaneously, our clinical educators can facilitate groups across the country, and at the end of the day, our patients can receive exceptional care from highly skilled clinicians.
Sources:
- Virtual reality in nursing education goes mainstream. Wolters Kluwer. (2023, March 28). https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/virtual-reality-in-education-goes-mainstream
- Berlin, G., Lapointe, M., Murphy, M., & Wexler, J. (2022, May 11). Assessing the lingering impact of covid-19 on the nursing workforce. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare/our-insights/assessing-the-lingering-impact-of-covid-19-on-the-nursing-workforce
- Lamb, R., et al., (2018) ‘Comparison of virtual reality and hands on activities in science education via functional near infrared spectroscopy’, Computers & Education, vol. 124, pp. 14–26. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.014
- Pandea, P., Thit, A., Sørensen, A. E., Mojsoska, B., Moeller, M. E., & Jepsen, P. M. (2021, January 18). Long-term effectiveness of immersive VR simulations in undergraduate science learning: lessons from a media-comparison study. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1293535.pdf