Relevance. Clinical thinking (CT) in modern conditions is becoming a trainable skill and can be acquired not only with experience, but also using virtual reality simulators with an infinite number of options for various nosologies, which allows developing a doctor’s professional thinking systematically and purposefully.
Objective. Comparison of the effectiveness of two training methods: standard in the conditions of classes at the department and in the clinic (group 1) and combined using the XR-Clinic medical simulator (group 2) for the effective formation of CT in residents of the final year of study in a prospective comparative, randomized, controlled study with blinded data analysis.
Material and methods. The study was conducted in January–May 2024. The research participants (RP) are volunteers – second-year residents. The total number of research participants (RP) (screening) is 118 people, 107 are included in the study. All scenarios are based on the model of a planned outpatient appointment with a patient. The study design included a training stage for one of the 2 groups using the XR-Clinic complex – a virtual clinic based on virtual reality. The source of feedback is the expert assessment data and the Smart Center of the XR-Clinic complex with an assessment of the results of the research participants’ actions. After signing the informed consent, randomization was carried out using the random number method. The UI of groups 1 and 2 diverged along their trajectories, and data exchange between them was not possible. Three scenarios were used, audio/video recording was used at all stages and the range of indicators of the actions performed was assessed by categories: safety (wash hands, use soap, use an antiseptic, use a towel), dialogue (collection of complaints and anamnesis), examination (palpation, percussion, auscultation), laboratory and instrumental examination (completeness and necessary sufficiency), treatment and the overall result of the CM. The results are presented, with the correct distribution, as M±SD, where M is the arithmetic mean, SD is the standard deviation, and as Me – median, CI – confidence intervals, minimum-maximum values, Q1–Q3 quartiles for an informative presentation of the studied sample. Dichotomous and ordinal qualitative data are expressed as frequencies (n) and percentage distribution of features. The difference was considered statistically significant at p<0.05.
Results. The groups of research participants did not have significant differences in gender composition, age and length of practical work experience. When comparing the groups in the performance of the «Safety» skill, statistically significant differences were determined between groups 1 and 2 (M1=7.89; 95% CI 1.48–14.30 and M2=23.50; 95% CI 11.46–35.54 points, p=0.019). Comparative subanalysis of critical survey points in the Dialogue section showed significant differences with an advantage in favor of group 2. The total score in the Inspection section of the actions performed was significantly better in group 2: Me=200, Q1–Q3=70–240 versus group 1: Me=110, Q1–Q3=50–205 points, p=0.007. The average percentage of necessary requested actions from the Additional Examinations section in the RPs (research participants) of the two groups were comparable and very close, p=0.147. In the Diagnosis section, the RPs of group 2 demonstrated a slightly higher average score: M1=71.93; 95% CI1 59.90–83.96 points and M2=86.00; 95% CI2 76.04–95.96, p=0.079. In the Treatment section, the average number of points on the UI in the groups was distributed as follows: M1=57.89; 95% CI 44.68–71.11 versus M2=86.00; 95% CI 76.04–95.96 points, p=0.012.
Conclusion. The group of students who completed even a single clinical case training on the XR-Clinic complex compared to group 1 (traditional training): fully completed the hygienic safety algorithm 4 times more often, asked key questions in the Dialogue section of the case on Arterial Hypertension: 1.5 times more often (presence of bad habits), 5.2 times more often (history of diabetes); made the wrong choice of treatment tactics 3 times less often and achieved 100% results, identifying the genetic predisposition to complications in standardized patient, which is extremely important for determining the risk of complications, formulating a diagnosis and choosing patient management tactics. In the second group, a single case study allowed for a 5-fold improvement in the examination result of one of the key abdominal examination positions in the presence of a jaundice symptom and motivated 15% more UI to palpate the lymph nodes in a patient with cancer. UI demonstrated a high percentage of correct diagnosis in both groups, with a 14% advantage in the group that worked with the virtual patient.
Thus, even after completing the case study once in virtual reality on the XR-Clinic simulator, the research participants demonstrated a better result in many aspects when working with a standardized patient.