Virtual Reality as a tool to Assist Learning in Aerospace Assembly

This study examines whether virtual reality (VR) is more superior to paper-based instructions in increasing the speed at which individuals learn a new assembly task. Specifically, the work seeks to quantify any learning benefits when individuals have been given the opportunity and compares the performance of two groups using virtual and hardcopy media types to pre-learn the task. A build experiment based on multiple builds of an aircraft panel showed that a group of people who pre-learned the assembly task using a VR environment completed their builds faster (average build time 29.5% lower). The VR group also made fewer references to instructional materials (average number of references 38% lower) and made fewer errors than a group using more traditional, hard copy instructions. These outcomes were more pronounced during build one with differences in build time and number of references showing limited statistical differences.

Design and Implementation of a Low Cost Virtual Rugby Decision Making Interactive

The paper describes the design and implementation of a novel low cost virtual rugby decision making interactive for use in a visitor centre. Original laboratory-based experimental work in decision making in rugby, using a virtual reality headset [1] is adapted for use in a public visitor centre, with consideration given to usability, costs, practicality and health and safety. Movement of professional rugby players was captured and animated within a virtually recreated stadium. Users then interact with these virtual representations via use of a lowcost sensor (Microsoft Kinect) to attempt to block them. Retaining the principles of perception and action, egocentric viewpoint, immersion, sense of presence, representative design and game design the system delivers an engaging and effective interactive to illustrate the underlying scientific principles of deceptive movement. User testing highlighted the need for usability, system robustness, fair and accurate scoring, appropriate level of difficulty and enjoyment.

Situation Background Assessment Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives

Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives C Morgan, L Adams, J Murray, R Dunlop, IK Walsh. Ian K Walsh, Centre for Medical Education, Queen’s University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6DP Background and Purpose: Structured communication tools are used to improve team communication quality.1,2 The Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR) tool is widely adopted within patient safety.3 SBAR effectiveness is reportedly equivocal, suggesting use is not sustained beyond initial training.4-6 Understanding perspectives of those using SBAR may further improve clinical communication. We investigated senior medical undergraduate perspectives on SBAR, particularly when communicating with senior colleagues. Methodology: Mixed methods data collection was used. A previously piloted questionnaire with 12 five point Lickert scale questions and 3 open questions was given to all final year medical students. A subgroup also participated in 10 focus groups, deploying strictly structured audio-recorded questions. Selection was by convenience sampling, data gathered by open text questions and comments transcribed verbatim. In-vivo coding (iterative, towards data saturation) preceded thematic analysis. Results: 233 of 255 students (91%) completed the survey. 1. There were clearly contradictory viewpoints on SBAR usage. A recurrent theme was a desire for formal feedback and a relative lack of practice/experience with SBAR. 2. Students reported SBAR as having variable interpretation between individuals; limiting use as a shared mental model. 3. Brief training sessions are insufficient to embed the tool. 4. Most students reported SBAR helping effective communication, especially by providing structure in stressful situations. 5. Only 18.5% of students felt an alternative resource might be needed. Sub analysis of the themes highlighted: A. Lack of clarity regarding what information to include and information placement within the acronym, B. Senior colleague negative response to SBAR C. Lack of conciseness with the tool. Discussion and Conclusions: Despite a wide range of contradictory interpretation of SBAR utility, most students wish to retain the resource. More practice opportunities/feedback may enhance user confidence and understanding. References: (1) Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2004 Oct;13(Suppl 1):85-90. (2) d'Agincourt-Canning LG, Kissoon N, Singal M, Pitfield AF. Culture, communication and safety: lessons from the airline industry. Indian J Pediatr 2011 Jun;78(6):703-708. (3) Dunsford J. Structured communication: improving patient safety with SBAR. Nurs Womens Health 2009 Oct;13(5):384-390. (4) Compton J, Copeland K, Flanders S, Cassity C, Spetman M, Xiao Y, et al. Implementing SBAR across a large multihospital health system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012 Jun;38(6):261-268. (5) Ludikhuize J, de Jonge E, Goossens A. Measuring adherence among nurses one year after training in applying the Modified Early Warning Score and Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation instruments. Resuscitation 2011 Nov;82(11):1428-1433. (6) Cunningham NJ, Weiland TJ, van Dijk J, Paddle P, Shilkofski N, Cunningham NY. Telephone referrals by junior doctors: a randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of SBAR in a simulated setting. Postgrad Med J 2012 Nov;88(1045):619-626.