Research

This study in medical residents across multiple disciplines: internal medicine, emergency medicine, family medicine and pediatrics – found no significant differences in technical skills, non-technical skills or knowledge retention between manikin-based simulation and OMS.

OMS was highly rated for realism and engagement by learners. Group sessions promoted teamwork, decision-making, and communication skills, with 100% of students reporting increased confidence in clinical assessments. Lecturers noted ease of use, high student engagement, and the cost-effectiveness of VR for large cohorts.

Learners felt significantly more empowered to make clinical decisions and developed better understanding of medications using OMS vs mannikin-based simulation. They were more confident in their ability to prioritize care and interventions, provide interventions that foster patient safety, and use evidence-based practice to provide care. OMS was highlighted as cost-effective, portable, and adaptable for modern teaching environments

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.

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

OMS costs were between $2.22 (£1.86) and $14.38 (£12.07) per use, while physical simulation costs vary from $28.38 (£23.83) to $394.95 (£331.48) per use.

When using OMS in one nursing class: “Based on a typical practical group size of 18, using OMS equates to an annual saving of $64,000 (£49,928).” OMS cost an estimated $4,400 (£3,424) in staff time, but the same sessions would have cost an estimated $17,000 (£13,323) to deliver with mannikin-based simulation.