OMS Efficacy

Brown, 2021

  • Usability of OMS was rated as “good to excellent” (as measured by the SUS).
  • Junior students’ learning experience (as measured with CLECS 2.0 and SET-M) was similar between OMS and face-to-face simulation.
  • Nurse practitioner students’ learning experience was consistently superior in OMS relative to both in person training and face-to-face simulation.

Brown, 2023

  • OMS was rated as easy to navigate, with two-thirds of all learners giving the highest rating of usability (as measured with the SUS).
  • 100% of learners rated the learning experience highly, selecting either “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” to all components of the SET-M.
  • The authors conclude that embedding OMS within a defined curriculum and facilitated debriefing is valuable for student learning and may ultimately affect patient care.

Mallick, 2021

  • Learners using OMS demonstrated significant increases in clinical confidence and performance improvement to Kirkpatrick level 3
  • 96% of learners noted that VR scenarios were better for knowledge retention than standard eLearning modules.

Seager, 2020

  • 95.5% of participants said they would recommend VR simulation to their peers.
  • Clinicians gained skills in time management, prioritization, delegation, escalation, teamwork and structured patient assessment.

Atkinson, 2020

  • After using OMS, clinician confidence in managing diabetic emergencies increased significantly.
  • 100% of trainees expect to use the knowledge gained within 3 months at work.
  • Qualitative responses included: “Honestly, this was the single most useful learning experience I’ve had so far in my training”.

OMS Return on Investment

NHS Long Term People Plan, 2023

  • Case study: “As well as enriching the student experience, the use of [OMS] provided access for almost double the number of learners in comparison to face-to-face simulation, with the university realising a 74% reduction in staffing time and estate costs (after 2000 hours of simulated learning on OMS)”. 

Economic Impact Study, YHEC, 2022

  • OMS costs were between $2.22 (£1.86) and $14.38 (£12.07) per use, whilst physical simulation costs vary from $28.38 (£23.83) to $394.95 (£331.48) per use. 
  • Taking a conservative average of $12.10 (£10.15) per use for OMS costs, the return on investment (ROI) of OMS vs physical simulation can be calculated at between 1.2 and 300 (120% to 3,000%)

VR Simulation Cost-Effectiveness

Bumbach, 2022

  • VR simulation education requires 22% less time than physical simulation education and is 40% less expensive.

Haerling, 2018

  • VR is significantly less expensive than physical simulation whilst delivering the same learning and performance outcomes.

VR Simulation vs Traditional Education

Padilha, 2019

  • Randomized controlled trial: VR significantly improves nurses’ knowledge over case-based learning, and leads to higher levels of learning satisfaction.

Kyaw, 2019

  • Meta-analysis: VR improves healthcare knowledge and skills significantly more than in-person education or e-learning.

VR Simulation vs Screen-Based Learning

Gutierrez, 2007

  • In healthcare education, VR significantly improves learning compared with screen-based delivery.

Bowman, 2009

  • VR significantly improves memory performance compared with screen-based learning and transfer to the real world.

Makowski, 2017

  • The sense of presence in VR significantly improves memorization vs screen-based learning.


Get in touch to discover what we can do for you



101 Arch Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA

201 Borough High Street, London, SE1 1JA, UK

Contact Us

Contact Form

Learner Login

Customer Support


101 Arch Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA

201 Borough High Street, London, SE1 1JA, UK