Implementation and sustainment of virtual reality stroke workflow training for physician trainees at comprehensive stroke centres: a quantitative and qualitative study.

BACKGROUND

Variation in stroke treatment metrics highlight a need for approaches to improve clinical processes. Training interventions can improve outcomes, but Australian physician trainees do not currently receive formal process-directed stroke training. Virtual reality (VR) stroke workflow training has proven acceptable, usable, useful and feasible in trial contexts, but how to integrate VR training into physician training remains unclear. The current study sought to document stroke staff perceptions of existing training and assess implementation of routine VR training at comprehensive stroke centres, outside of a trial context.

METHODS

Training was delivered to physician trainees via individual sessions or facilitated group workshops depending on the hospital site. VR usage data was captured automatically via Wi-Fi. Survey responses from both trainees and training staff were collected, with statistical comparisons performed for matching questions in pre- and post-training surveys. Themes identified in open-ended survey responses were enumerated and reported.

RESULTS

Forty-two TACTICS VR training sessions were logged at 2 hospitals between May 2022 and October 2023. Trainees reported receiving low amounts of prior formal stroke training; both trainees and training staff identified unmet needs and barriers to existing training. VR users (n = 30) provided positive feedback on VR hardware, software design, user experience, content, educational value and delivery approach (mean scores 3.9 to 4.7; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). VR training improved confidence in: knowledge of acute stroke assessment / treatment (post-training vs. pre-training = 4.0±0.7 vs. 2.9±1.0; P < .0001), ability to effectively assess / treat stroke (4.0±0.6 vs. 3.1±1.0; P < .0001), ability to optimally communicate with colleagues (4.1±0.6 vs. 3.3±1.0; P < .001), understanding of workflow practices (4.3±0.6 vs. 3.2±1.2; P < .0001), ability to make improvements (4.1±0.8 vs. 3.0±1.2; P < .0001) and awareness of local stroke management criteria / processes (4.1±0.8 vs. 3.6±1.1; P < .01). Respondents suggested enhancements in funding, access, awareness, training populations and delivery modality to improve training sustainment.

CONCLUSIONS

VR stroke workflow training was perceived by trainees and training staff as feasible, acceptable, usable, useful and positively impacted stroke training. Respondents endorsed future use of VR training to support training at comprehensive stroke centres and identified aspects for improved future integration.