Background
Advancements in technology continue to transform the landscape of medical education. The need for technology-enhanced distance learning has been further accelerated by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The relatively recent emergence of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and alternate reality has expanded the possible applications of simulation-based education (SBE) outside of the traditional simulation laboratory, making SBE accessible asynchronously and in geographically diverse locations.
Objective
In this review, we will explore the evidence base for use of emerging technologies in SBE as well as the strengths and limitations of each modality in a variety of settings.
Methods
PubMed was searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1995 and 2021 that focused on VR in medical education. The search terms included medical education, VR, simulation, AR, and alternate reality. We also searched reference lists from selected articles to identify additional relevant studies.
Results
VR simulations have been used successfully in resuscitation, communication, and bronchoscopy training. In contrast, AR has demonstrated utility in teaching anatomical correlates with the use of diagnostic imaging, such as point-of-care ultrasound. Alternate reality has been used as a tool for developing clinical reasoning skills, longitudinal patient panel management, and crisis resource management via multiplayer platforms.
Conclusion
Although each of these modalities has a variety of educational applications in health profession education, there are benefits and limitations to each that are important to recognize prior to the design and implementation of educational content, including differences in equipment requirements, cost, and scalability.
We created a standardized outpatient pulmonary curriculum and demonstrated its feasibility in positively influencing fellows' perceived competency in ambulatory pulmonology. Additional assessment of knowledge, performance outcomes, and applicability at other institutions is needed.
Background:
Whether graduating pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellows feel adequately trained in interstitial lung disease (ILD) remains unknown. In addition, there are no published data describing the current approach to educating trainees about ILD.
Objective:
To characterize the present state of ILD training during fellowship and to determine graduating PCCM fellows’ perceived abilities to diagnose and manage ILD.
Methods:
We surveyed PCCM fellowship program directors nationwide and compared their perceptions of graduating fellows’ abilities to diagnose, provide initial management to, and offer longitudinal care to patients with ILD using a series of unpaired
t
tests. We also inquired about existing practices for educating fellows about ILD. We then surveyed graduating PCCM fellows from 19 different preselected programs to assess comfort level with ILD in comparison with other core clinical domains.
Results:
Program director respondents (
n
= 74, 40% response rate) rated graduating fellows’ abilities to establish specific ILD diagnoses and to provide initial management similarly (4.3 ± 0.8 on five-point Likert scale), whereas the ability to provide longitudinal expert care was rated significantly lower (3.8 ± 0.9,
P
= 0.001). Most respondents (
n
= 52, 70.3%) reported having dedicated outpatient ILD specialists with whom fellows could rotate, but only half required this rotation. In addition, very few (
n
= 17, 23.0%) reported that a majority of patients with suspected or newly diagnosed ILD were scheduled in fellow clinics, many of whom received subsequent longitudinal care from dedicated ILD specialists. Among 71 third-year fellow respondents, confidence in managing ILD was rated poorly (3.2 ± 1.0 on a five-point Likert scale) in contrast to more common diseases like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.4 ± 0.7,
P
< 0.001) and asthma (4.2 ± 0.8,
P
< 0.001).
Conclusion:
Trainee exposure to ILD in both clinical and educational settings varied across PCCM fellowships nationwide. Fellows nearing graduation were significantly less confident in their ability to manage ILD compared with other more common pulmonary diseases.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.