Use of virtual reality applications in basic life support training

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of basic life support (BLS) training given via 360° video and virtual reality (VR) application with the classical training method. Method: Participants were divided into 2 groups as Classical group and VR group. All participants received theoretical training under the same conditions. Participants in the classical training group received practical training on a low-reality simulation mannequin. Participants in the VR group were shown the practical training video recorded with a 360-degree camera with VR glasses, and then practical application was performed on the VR TCA application. Finally, both groups were subjected to the scenario on a high reality simulation model that they had not experienced before. Participants' success scores, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality parameters, and the duration of the steps were evaluated and compared. Participants' satisfaction during the training was also evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 program. The significance level was taken as 0.05. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test whether the variables fit the normal distribution. Categorical variables were given with frequency and percentage values and "Pearson Chi-Square Analysis" and "Fisher's Exact Chi-Square Analysis" were used for comparisons. Results: The study was completed with a total of 33 participants, 17 in the VR group and 16 in the classical group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of total achievement scores (p=0.842). In the VR group, total success scores of males were significantly higher than females (p<0.05). There was no significant difference when the success score of using OED was evaluated (p=0.143). While the chest compression depth was 3.9±1.2 cm in the classical group, this value was 4.5±1.2 cm in the VR group. When the rate of reaching the target depth of chest compression was evaluated, no significant difference was found between the two groups (p=0.296). The mean chest compression rate was 109.4±16.9 beats/min in the classical group and 125.5±17.8 /min in the VR group and a statistically significant difference was found between the two groups (p<0.05), but the mean chest compression rate in the VR group was above the target value. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the rate of reaching the targeted chest compression rate (p=0.169). Chest compression fraction was 75.3±5.7% in the classical group and 73.3±6.2% in the VR group. When the rate of reaching the targeted chest compression fraction in the study was evaluated, an average of 18% of the participants reached the target for both groups, and no significant difference was found between the two groups (p=1.000). There was also no significant difference in the duration of the steps for both groups. In the satisfaction survey, the majority of VR participants stated that they thought VR would improve the quality of CPR training in the near future. In addition, the majority of the participants in both trainings stated that they believed that they could approach a patient with suspected cardiac arrest without hesitation. Conclusion: Our study reveals that VR-based practical training in cardiopulmonary arrest situations shows similar efficacy to conventional methods and participants showed high satisfaction with VR training. Adding this method, which saves time and cost in medical education, to routine medical education practice may be beneficial in terms of labor and cost. Keywords: Virtual Reality Goggles, VR, Basic Life Support, Simulation, CPR