Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:47:42.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International audit of Virtual Environment for Radiotherapy Training usage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2017

P. Bridge ,
E. Giles ,
A. Williams ,
A. Boejen ,
R. Appleyard  and
M. Kirby
P. Bridge*
Affiliation:
Directorate of Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
E. Giles
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
A. Williams
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
A. Boejen
Affiliation:
Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
R. Appleyard
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
M. Kirby
Affiliation:
Directorate of Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
*
Correspondence to: Pete Bridge, Directorate of Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L69 7ZX, UK. Tel: +0151 795 8366. E-mail: pete.bridge@liverpool.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

The Virtual Environment for Radiotherapy Training (VERT) is a high-fidelity simulation hardware and software resource that replicates the expensive and high-pressure clinical environment of a radiotherapy treatment machine. The simulation allows students to gain confidence with clinical techniques in a safe and unpressured academic environment before clinical placement. The aim of this study was to establish the current and future role of VERT and explore the potential for collaborative resource development and research.

Methods

An anonymous online survey was made available to all users of the software internationally (n=52). A mixture of fixed and open response questions gathered usage data and user feedback.

Results

The study had a 90% response rate (n=47). Most participants (78·5%) used the resource 1 day/week or less; around 8,000 hours worldwide. It was clear that most participants used the simulation resource to help student to either gain understanding of concepts and techniques or to gain practice with techniques and practical skills. There was good support for collaborative resource development, deployment and evaluation to help VERT users to fully exploit its range of pedagogical uses.

Conclusions

This audit demonstrated high levels of engagement and enthusiasm for collaborative resource development and ongoing research among the radiotherapy simulation community. Adoption of an international Academic Community of Practice for collaborative simulation resource deployment and support may be of significant value and is worthy of further discussion and consideration.

Keywords

auditeducationradiotherapysimulationtrainingVERT
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 375 - 382
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Lammers, R L, Byrwa, M J, Fales, W D, Hale, R A. Simulation-based assessment of paramedic pediatric resuscitation skills. Prehosp Emerg Care 2009; 13 (3): 345–356.Google Scholar
2. Maréchal, L, Barthod, C, Goujon, L, Büssing, T. Design and development of a mechatronic infant torso simulator for respiratory physiotherapy learning. Mechatronics 2012; 22 (1): 55–64.Google Scholar
3. Fucentese, S F, Rahm, S, Wieser, K, Spillmann, J, Harders, M, Koch, P P. Evaluation of a virtual-reality-based simulator using passive haptic feedback for knee arthroscopy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (4): 1077–1085.Google Scholar
4. Seymour, N E, Cooper, J B, Farley, D R et al. Simulation-based surgical education: best practices in interprofessional education and training in surgery: experiences from American College of Surgeons-Accredited Education Institutes. Surgery 2013; 154 (1): 1–12.Google Scholar
5. Brent, N E. The use of high fidelity clinical simulation in the education of nurse externs. Clin Simul Nurs 2010; 6 (3): 108–109.Google Scholar
6. Kilmon, C A, Brown, L, Ghosh, S, Mikitiuk, A. Immersive virtual reality simulations in nursing education. Nurs Educ Perspect 2010; 31 (5): 314–317.Google Scholar
7. Wang, Z, Liu, Q, Wang, H. Medical simulation-based education improves medicos’ clinical skills. J Biomed Res 2013; 27 (2): 81–84.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Bridge, P, Appleyard, R M, Ward, J W, Philips, R, Beavis, A W. The development and evaluation of a virtual radiotherapy treatment machine using an immersive visualisation environment. Comput Educ 2007; 49 (2): 481–494.Google Scholar
9. Phillips, R, Ward, J W, Page, L et al. Virtual reality training for radiotherapy becomes a reality. Stud Health Technol Inform 2008; 132: 366–371.Google ScholarPubMed
10. Kirby, M C, Pennington, H, Al-Samarraie, F et al. Clinical technology in 21st century radiotherapy education—towards greater alignment with clinical competencies. Radiother Oncol 2014; 111 (suppl 1): 738.Google Scholar
11. James, S, Dumbleton, C. An evaluation of the utilisation of the virtual environment for radiotherapy training (VERT) in clinical radiotherapy centres across the UK. Radiography 2013; 19 (2): 142–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Boejen, A, Grau, C. Review: virtual reality in radiation therapy training. Surg Oncol 2011; 20: 185–188.Google Scholar
13. Nisbet, H, Matthews, S. The educational theory underpinning a clinical workbook for VERT. Radiography 2011; 17 (1): 72–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Green, D, Appleyard, R M. The influence of VERT characteristics on the development of skills in skin apposition techniques. Radiography 2011; 17 (3): 178–182.Google Scholar
15. Beavis, A W, Ward, J W. The development of a virtual reality dosimetry training platform for physics training. Med Phys 2012; 39: 3969.Google Scholar
16. Beavis, A W, Ward, J W. The use of a virtual reality simulator to explore and understand the impact of Linac mis-calibrations. J Phys Conf Ser 2014; 489 (1): 12086–12091.Google Scholar
17. Kirby, M C. Teaching radiotherapy physics concepts using simulation: experience with student radiographers in Liverpool, UK. Med Phys Int J 2015; 3 (2): 87–93.Google Scholar
18. Bridge, P, Crowe, S B, Gibson, G, Ellemor, N J, Hargrave, C, Carmichael, M. A virtual radiation therapy workflow training simulation. Radiography 2016; 22 (1): e59–e63.Google Scholar
19. Boejen, A, Vestergaard, A, Hoffmann, L et al. A learning programme qualifying radiation therapists to manage daily online adaptive radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 2015; 54 (9): 1697–1701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Sulé-Suso, J, Finney, S, Bisson, J et al. Pilot study on virtual imaging for patient information on radiotherapy planning and delivery. Radiography 2015; 21: 273–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Stewart-Lord, A, Brown, M, Noor, S, Cook, J, Jallow, O. The utilisation of virtual images in patient information giving sessions for prostate cancer patients prior to radiotherapy. Radiography 2016; 22 (4): 269–273.Google Scholar
22. Chapman, K, James, S. A review of results from patient experience surveys during the introduction of group pre-radiotherapy patient information sessions. Radiography 2016; 22 (3): 237–243.Google Scholar
23. Hansen, H, Nielsen, B K, Boejen, A, Vestergaard, A. Teaching cancer patients the value of correct positioning during radiotherapy using visual aids and practical exercises. J Cancer Educ 2016 [Epub ahead of print] https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-016-1122-2.Google Scholar
24. Wenger, E, McDermott, R, Snyder, W. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.Google Scholar
25. Probst, G, Borzillo, S. Why communities of practice succeed and why they fail. Eur Manage J 2008; 26 (5): 335–347.Google Scholar