Qualitative Assessment and Participant Feedback
sore, headache
ADVERSE EFFECTS, SAID
In participant feedback, 1 individual said, “The communication with a senior [clinician] during the task was helpful and useful. This is the major added value of the device. In the pressure of a medical emergency, I did not find reading a textbook [clinical guidance] diagram useful and I didn’t think the holograms to select the tools were useful. In fact, I found them confusing. I was confident doing chest drains already, though. I can imagine if you have never done a chest drain before, this side of things could be useful.” Overall, 19 participants (86.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that the MR device was comfortable to wear, and 17 participants (77.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that it was easy to interact with and control the platform. There were 20 participants (90.1%) who thought the quality of virtual objects was good and 22 participants (100%) who could see the benefit of using the technology for delivering clinical care; 13 participants (59.1%) thought that most people would learn to use this system very quickly. There was a consensus that the MR technology improved the experience of delivering clinical care; 19 participants (86.4%) reported that they strongly agreed that they were more confident in making clinical decisions, and the same number reported that they were more confident in undertaking clinical procedures. There were more modest demonstrations of how these gains translated into the perceptions of the care delivered; 15 participants (68.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that they made better decisions, performed clinical procedures to a higher quality, and made fewer errors. There were 7 participants (31.8%) who agreed or strongly agreed that the MR device provided better situational awareness; 20 participants (90.1%) who agreed or strongly agreed that the device improved communication, access to senior support, and their perception of clinical support; and 14 participants (63.6%) who agreed or strongly agreed that the device improved teamwork. A participant said, “Communication was quick, and encouragement and guidance were present remotely, which resulted in [the] correction of approach or advice on instrument use. [This] provided the user with confidence when undertaking [the] procedure.”However, some participants reported mild adverse effects of the MR system during the simulation; 2 participants (9.1%) reported discomfort from wearing the device, and the same number reported sore eyes or a headache. Despite some anticipated adverse effects and user challenges, no participants reported that the technology impeded their ability to deliver safe care and 20 participants (90.1%) agreed or strongly agreed that they would be happy to use the device in clinical practice.