Enhancing Nursing Education Through Affordable and Realistic Holographic Mixed Reality: The Virtual Standardized Patient for Clinical Simulation

  • Sean W. HauzeEmail author
  • Helina H. Hoyt
  • James P. Frazee
  • Philip A. Greiner
  • James M. Marshall
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1120)


Nurses serve a valuable role in the healthcare industry. Nurses are trained with the skills and knowledge to thrive in a fast-paced, evolving environment. In order to meet the complex and diverse needs of patients, nurses must be able to assess and prioritize care to produce safe and high-quality outcomes. Simulation is an established method of educating nursing students and preparing nurses to respond appropriately to situations they are likely to encounter in practice. Traditional nursing simulation devices are prohibitively expensive for many nursing education institutions. The development of augmented, mixed, and virtual reality simulation delivery offers a new platform for simulation, known as immersive simulation. Immersive simulation can virtually place nursing students in situations that are difficult to arrange in actual clinical practicums or that occur rarely but for which nurses need to be prepared. Additionally, the hardware required to deliver immersive simulation is much cheaper than that of traditional nursing simulation devices. This chapter describes the virtual standardized patient application delivered via mixed reality immersive simulation. This chapter also discusses the research initiative currently underway to assess student perceptions to this modality of health training simulation.


Nursing education Technology Mixed reality Immersive simulation Assessment 


  1. Akçayır G, Akçayır M (2016) Research trends in social network sites’ educational use: a review of publications in all SSCI journals to 2015. Rev Educ 4(3):293–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2016) Advancing healthcare transformation: a new era for academic nursing. American Association of Colleges of NursingGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2017) Fact sheet: nursing shortage. American Association of Colleges of NursingGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84(2):191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barsom EZ, Graafland M, Schijven MP (2016) Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical training. Surg Endosc 30(10):4174–4183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker SA, Cummins M, Davis A et al (2017) NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition. The New Media Consortium, Toronto, pp 1–60Google Scholar
  7. Benner P, Sutphen M, Leonard V et al (2010) Educating nurses: A radical call for Transformation. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  8. Berndt J (2014) Patient safety and simulation in prelicensure nursing education: an integrative review. Teach Learn Nurs 9(1):16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blodget H (2016) The virtual and augmented reality market will reach $162 billion by 2020. Accessed 1 Oct 2018
  10. Bloom BS (1968) Learning for mastery. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, topical papers and reprints 1(2):2Google Scholar
  11. Cai S, Wang X, Chiang FK (2014) A case study of augmented reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Comput Hum Behav 37:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiu JL, DeJaegher CJ, Chao J (2015) The effects of augmented virtual science laboratories on middle school students’ understanding of gas properties. Comput Educ 85:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Gagne JC, Oh J, Kang J et al (2013) Virtual worlds in nursing education: a synthesis of the literature. J Nurs Educ 52(7):391–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Decker S, Sportsman S, Puetz L et al (2008) The evolution of simulation and its contribution to competency. J Contin Educ Nurs 39(2):74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dewey J (1938) Experience and educationGoogle Scholar
  16. Doolen J, Mariani B, Atz T et al (2016) High-fidelity simulation in undergraduate nursing education: a review of simulation reviews. Clin Simul Nurs 12(7):290–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer C (1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev 100(3):363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher D, King L (2013) An integrative literature review on preparing nursing students through simulation to recognize and respond to the deteriorating patient. J Adv Nurs 69(11):2375–2388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(23):8410–8415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayden JK, Smiley RA, Alexander M (2014a) The NCSBN national simulation study: a longitudinal, randomized, controlled study replacing clinical hours with simulation in prelicensure nursing education. J Nurs Regul 5(2):S3–S40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayden JK, Smiley RA, Gross L (2014b) Simulation in nursing education: current regulations and practices. J Nurs Regul 5(2):25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. INACSL Standards Committee (2016) INACSL standards of best practice: simulation SM debriefing. Clin Simul Nurs 12:S21–S25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeffries PR (2005) A framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating: simulations used as teaching strategies in nursing. Nurs Educ Perspect 26(2):96–103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeffries PR (2012) Simulation in nursing education: from conceptualization to evaluation. National League for Nursing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeffries PR, Rogers KJ (2007) Theoretical framework for simulation design. In: Simulation in nursing education: from conceptualization to evaluation. National League for Nursing, New York, pp 21–33Google Scholar
  26. Jeffries PR, Bambini D, Hensel D et al (2009) Constructing maternal-child learning experiences using clinical simulations. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 38(5):613–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keller JM (1987) Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. J Instr Dev 10(3):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keller JM (1993) Manual for instructional materials motivational survey (IMMS). Unpublished manuscript, Tallahassee, Florida, 1999Google Scholar
  29. Keller JM (1999) Using the ARCS motivational process in computer-based instruction and distance education. New Dir Teach Learn 1999(78):37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keller JM (2010) The Arcs model of motivational design. In: Motivational design for learning and performance. Springer, Boston, pp 43–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kidd LI, Knisley SJ, Morgan KI (2012) Effectiveness of a second life® simulation as a teaching strategy for undergraduate mental health nursing students. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 50(7):28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knowles M (1973) The adult learner: a neglected species. Gulf Publishing Company, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  33. Lapkin S, Levett-Jones T (2011) A cost–utility analysis of medium vs. high-fidelity human patient simulation manikins in nursing education. J Clin Nurs 20(23–24):3543–3552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Larue C, Pepin J, Allard É (2015) Simulation in preparation or substitution for clinical placement: a systematic review of the literature. J Nurs Educ Pract 5(9):132Google Scholar
  35. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen MER et al (2011) Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. J Assoc Am Med Coll 86(6):706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyer L (2016) Pearson pilots mixed reality educational resources. Accessed 1 Oct 2018
  37. Milgram P, Kishino F (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE TRANSACTIONS Inf Syst 77(12):1321–1329Google Scholar
  38. National League for Nursing (2015) A vision for teaching with simulation: a living document from the National League for Nursing NLN Board of Governors. Accessed 1 Oct 2018
  39. Salmi H, Thuneberg H, Vainikainen MP (2016) How do engineering attitudes vary by gender and motivation? Attractiveness of outreach science exhibitions in four countries. Eur J Eng Educ 41(6):638–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skiba DJ (2016) On the horizon: trends, challenges, and educational technologies in higher education. Nurs Educ Perspect 37(3):183–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith PC, Hamilton BK (2015) The effects of virtual reality simulation as a teaching strategy for skills preparation in nursing students. Clin Simul Nurs 11(1):52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ulrich D, Farra S, Smith S et al (2014) The student experience using virtual reality simulation to teach decontamination. Clin Simul Nurs 10(11):546–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vaughn J, Lister M, Shaw RJ (2016) Piloting augmented reality technology to enhance realism in clinical simulation. CIN: Comput Inform Nurs 34(9):402–405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Vottero BA (2014) Proof of concept: virtual reality simulation of a Pyxis machine for medication administration. Clin Simul Nurs 10(6):e325–e331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weaver A (2011) High-fidelity patient simulation in nursing education: an integrative review. Nurs Educ Perspect 32(1):37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Young PK, Shellenbarger T (2012) Interpreting the NLN Jeffries framework in the context of nurse educator preparation. J Nurs Educ 51(8):422–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang J, Sung YT, Hou HT (2014) The development and evaluation of an augmented reality-based armillary sphere for astronomical observation instruction. Comput Educ 73:178–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean W. Hauze
    • 1
    Email author
  • Helina H. Hoyt
    • 1
  • James P. Frazee
    • 1
  • Philip A. Greiner
    • 1
  • James M. Marshall
    • 1
  1. 1.San Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations