Submitted:
25 August 2023
Posted:
29 August 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Approval and Consent
2.2. Visual Blood
2.3. Previous Visual Blood Simulation Studies
2.4. Study Design
2.4.1. Qualitative Part: Participant Interviews
2.4.2. Quantitative Part: Online Survey
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participant Characteristics
3.2. Qualitative Analysis
3.3. User Perceptions Following Virtual Reality Simulations
3.4. User Perceptions Following Simulations (No Virtual Reality Headset)
3.5. Online Survey

4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix B
References
- Plsek, P.E. and T. Greenhalgh, Complexity science: The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ, 2001. 323(7313): p. 625-8. [CrossRef]
- Olshansky, S.J., From Lifespan to Healthspan. JAMA, 2018. 320(13): p. 1323-1324. [CrossRef]
- Global Burden of Disease Study, C., Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet, 2015. 386(9995): p. 743-800.
- Obermeyer, Z. and T.H. Lee, Lost in Thought - The Limits of the Human Mind and the Future of Medicine. N Engl J Med, 2017. 377(13): p. 1209-1211. [CrossRef]
- Makary, M.A. and M. Daniel, Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ, 2016. 353: p. i2139. [CrossRef]
- Pickering, B.W., et al., Novel Representation of Clinical Information in the ICU: Developing User Interfaces which Reduce Information Overload. Appl Clin Inform, 2010. 1(2): p. 116-31.
- Singh, H., et al., Information overload and missed test results in electronic health record-based settings. JAMA Intern Med, 2013. 173(8): p. 702-4. [CrossRef]
- Bracco, D., et al., Human errors in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit: a 1-year prospective study. Intensive Care Med, 2001. 27(1): p. 137-45. [CrossRef]
- Severinghaus, J.W., The invention and development of blood gas analysis apparatus. Anesthesiology, 2002. 97(1): p. 253-6. [CrossRef]
- Gattinoni, L., A. Pesenti, and M. Matthay, Understanding blood gas analysis. Intensive Care Med, 2018. 44(1): p. 91-93. [CrossRef]
- Council, G.M. Practical skills and procedures. 2019.
- Austin, K. and P. Jones, Accuracy of interpretation of arterial blood gases by emergency medicine doctors. Emerg Med Australas, 2010. 22(2): p. 159-65. [CrossRef]
- Powles, A.C., et al., Interpretation of blood gas analysis by physicians in a community teaching hospital. Br J Dis Chest, 1979. 73(3): p. 237-42.
- Wright, M.C., et al., Critical care information display approaches and design frameworks: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Biomed Inform X, 2019. 3. [CrossRef]
- Drews, F.A., Patient Monitors in Critical Care: Lessons for Improvement, in Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol. 3: Performance and Tools), K. Henriksen, et al., Editors. 2008: Rockville (MD).
- Tscholl, D.W., et al., It's not you, it's the design - common problems with patient monitoring reported by anesthesiologists: a mixed qualitative and quantitative study. BMC Anesthesiol, 2019. 19(1): p. 87. [CrossRef]
- Waller, R.G., et al., Novel displays of patient information in critical care settings: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 2019. 26(5): p. 479-489. [CrossRef]
- Drews, F.A. and D.R. Westenskow, The right picture is worth a thousand numbers: Data displays in anesthesia. Human Factors, 2006. 48(1): p. 59-71. [CrossRef]
- Ensor, T.M., T.D. Bancroft, and W.E. Hockley, Listening to the Picture-Superiority Effect Evidence for the Conceptual-Distinctiveness Account of Picture Superiority in Recognition. Experimental Psychology, 2019. 66(2): p. 134-153.
- Drews, F.A., et al., Evaluating a Graphical Cardiovascular Display for Anesthesia. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2016. 45(17): p. 1303-1307.
- Wachter, S.B., et al., The evaluation of a pulmonary display to detect adverse respiratory events using high resolution human simulator. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2006. 13(6): p. 635-642. [CrossRef]
- Philips. Patient Monitoring: Visual Patient Avatar. 2023; Available from: https://www.philips.co.uk/healthcare/technology/visual-patient-avatar.
- Tscholl, D.W., et al., Situation Awareness-Oriented Patient Monitoring with Visual Patient Technology: A Qualitative Review of the Primary Research. Sensors, 2020. 20(7). [CrossRef]
- Rossler, J., et al., Improving decision making through presentation of viscoelastic tests as a 3D animated blood clot: the Visual Clot. Anaesthesia, 2020. 75(8): p. 1059-1069. [CrossRef]
- Gasciauskaite, G., et al., Human-centered visualization technologies for patient monitoring are the future: a narrative review. Crit Care, 2023. 27(1): p. 254. [CrossRef]
- Schweiger, G.M., A.; Henckert, D.; Braun, J.; Meybohm, P.; Hottenrott, S.; Froehlich, C.; Zacharowski, K.; Raimann, F.J.; Piekarski, F.; Noethiger, C.B.; Spahn, D.R.; Tscholl, D.W.; Roche, T.R., Visual Blood, a 3D Animated Computer Model to Optimize the Interpretation of Blood Gas Analysis. Bioengineering, 2023.
- Bergauer, L.A., S.; Braun, J.; Ganter, M.T.; Meybohm, P.; Hottenrott, S.; Zacharowski, K.; Raimann, F.J.; Rivas, E.; López-Baamonde, M.; Spahn, D.R.; Noethiger, C.B.; Tscholl, D.W.; Roche, T.R., Visual Blood, Visualisation of Blood Gas Analysis in Virtual Reality, Leads to More Correct Diagnoses: A Computer-Based, Multicentre, Simulation Study. Bioengineering, 2023.
- Tong, A., P. Sainsbury, and J. Craig, Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2007. 19(6): p. 349-57. [CrossRef]
- O'Brien, B.C., et al., Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 2014. 89(9): p. 1245-51.
- M.R., E., Designing for Situation Awareness: An. Approach to User-Centered Design. 2nd ed. 2011: CRC Press Inc. Boca Raton, FL, USA.
- McHugh, M.L., Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 2012. 22(3): p. 276-282. [CrossRef]
- O'Connor, C. and H. Joffe, Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2020. 19. [CrossRef]
- Hussain, R., M. Chessa, and F. Solari, Mitigating Cybersickness in Virtual Reality Systems through Foveated Depth-of-Field Blur. Sensors, 2021. 21(12). [CrossRef]
- Bruno, R.R., et al., Virtual reality in intensive care. Intensive Care Medicine, 2022. [CrossRef]
- Atieno, O.P., An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of education in the 21st century, 2009. 13: p. 13-38.



| Study and participant characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Simulations with visual reality device | |
| Study centers, n | 5 |
| Participants per study center, n | 10 |
| Female participants, n (%) | 31 (62%) |
| Age (years), median (*IQR) | 31 (28 - 41) |
| Senior physicians, n (%) | 22 (44%) |
| Resident physicians, n (%) | 28 (56%) |
| Total work experience (years), median (IQR) | 5 (2 - 10) |
| Blood gas analysis skills, self-rated, (0 = novice, 100 = expert), median (IQR) | 70.5 (60 - 83) |
| Video game playing, subjective frequency (0 = never, 100 = very often), median (IQR) | 6 (0 - 31) |
| Simulations without visual reality device | |
Study centers, n
|
3
|
| Female participants, n (%) | 42 (60%) |
| Age (years), median (IQR) | 30 (28-39) |
| Senior physicians, n (%) | 15 (21.4%) |
| Resident physicians, n (%) | 55 (78.6%) |
| Total work experience (years), median (IQR) | 6 (3-8) |
| Blood gas analysis skills, self-rated, (0 = novice, 100 = expert), median (IQR) | 29 (22-37) |
| Users` Perceptions after the Computer Based Simulations with Virtual Reality | Users` Perceptions after the Computer-Based Simulations without Virtual Reality |
|---|---|
Positive (87/165, 53%)
|
Positive (103/200, 52%)
|
Negative (78/165 47%)
|
Negative (97/200 48.5%)
|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).