No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The use of Microsoft HoloLens 2 in teaching clinical paediatric ENT: a modern approach to reducing child distress
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 November 2025
Abstract
Background
Clinical exposure is vital in medical education, but in paediatric otolaryngology traditional bedside teaching can cause children distress and fatigue. Augmented reality technology offers a solution to enhance learning while reducing these challenges. This study evaluated the feasibility of using Microsoft HoloLens 2 augmented reality technology in clinical paediatric ENT to reduce children distress during bedside teaching.
Methods
An 18-month pilot study at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital involved 109 4th-year medical students from the University of Liverpool. Students participated in virtual ward round sessions, where one student performed a clinical review using HoloLens 2, while others observed and interacted remotely. Feedback from students, patients and parents was collected verbally and via questionnaires.
Results
Overall, 69 per cent of students rated the augmented reality session as equivalent or better than traditional bedside teaching. Most students (87 per cent) had no prior experience with augmented reality, yet found it engaging and beneficial. Parent reported reduced stress for their children.
Conclusion
Augmented reality using HoloLens 2 is a promising tool for teaching clinical paediatric ENT, providing an immersive, child-friendly learning experience. While effective, high costs and technical challenges may restrict wider implementation. Future studies should explore further integration of augmented reality in medical education.
Information
- Type
- Main Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED.
Footnotes
Nathan Richard Walker takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper
References
Hilliard, RL, Bannister, SL, Amin, H, Baird, B. Paediatric medical education: challenges and new developments. Paediatr Child Health 2009;14:303–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connelly, KL, Gordon, MS. Is bedside teaching necessary or acceptable in paediatrics? Med J Aust 2013;198:25–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, H. Collaborative working between pediatric speech and language therapy and ENT colleagues. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;22:167–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brigham, TJ. Reality check: basics of augmented, virtual, and mixed reality. Med Ref Serv Q 2017;36:171–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadek, O, Baldwin, F, Gray, R, Khayyat, N, Fotis, T. Impact of virtual and augmented reality on quality of medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. J Grad Med Ed 2023;15:328–38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sivananthan, A, Gueroult, A, Zijlstra, G, Martin, G, Baheerathan, A, Pratt, P, et al. Using mixed reality headsets to deliver remote bedside teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: feasibility trial of HoloLens 2. JMIR Form Res 2022;6:e35674CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braun, V, Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khoo, EJ, Parameshwara, N, Kutzsche, S. Parents’ perceptions of bedside teaching. Clin Teach 2019;16:497–501CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tang, KS, Cheng, DL, Mi, E, Greenberg, PB. Augmented reality in medical education: a systematic review. Can Med Educ J 2019;11:e81–96Google Scholar
Pottle, J. Virtual reality and the transformation of medical education. Future Healthc J 2019;6:181–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed