A Critical Review of Mechanical Ventilation Virtual Simulators: Is It Time to Use Them?

• Published in: JMIR medical education Vol. 2; no. 1; p. e8
• Main Authors: Lino, Juliana Arcanjo, Gomes, Gabriela Carvalho, Sousa, Nancy Delma Silva Vega Canjura, Carvalho, Andrea K, Diniz, Marcelo Emanoel Bezerra, Viana Junior, Antonio Brazil, Holanda, Marcelo Alcantara
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Canada JMIR Publications 14.06.2016
• Subjects: Computer simulation; Education; Heuristic; Laboratories; Learning; Medical personnel; Multimedia; Original Paper; Patients; Principles; Professionals; Students; Systematic review; Teaching; Usability; Validation studies; Ventilators; Wireless access points; positive-pressure respiration; computer simulation; learning; medical education
• ISSN: 2369-3762; 2369-3762
• DOI: 10.2196/mededu.5350

Teaching mechanical ventilation at the bedside with real patients is difficult with many logistic limitations. Mechanical ventilators virtual simulators (MVVS) may have the potential to facilitate mechanical ventilation (MV) training by allowing Web-based virtual simulation. We aimed to identify and describe the current available MVVS, to compare the usability of their interfaces as a teaching tool and to review the literature on validation studies. We performed a comparative evaluation of the MVVS, based on a literature/Web review followed by usability tests according to heuristic principles evaluation of their interfaces as performed by professional experts on MV. Eight MVVS were identified. They showed marked heterogeneity, mainly regarding virtual patient's anthropomorphic parameters, pulmonary gas exchange, respiratory mechanics and muscle effort configurations, ventilator terminology, basic ventilatory modes, settings alarms, monitoring parameters, and design. The Hamilton G5 and the Xlung covered a broader number of parameters, tools, and have easier Web-based access. Except for the Xlung, none of the simulators displayed monitoring of arterial blood gases and alternatives to load and save the simulation. The Xlung obtained the greater scores on heuristic principles assessments and the greater score of easiness of use, being the preferred MVVS for teaching purposes. No strong scientific evidence on the use and validation of the current MVVS was found. There are only a few MVVS currently available. Among them, the Xlung showed a better usability interface. Validation tests and development of new or improvement of the current MVVS are needed.