Assessment of functions based on identified strengths and weaknesses for simulation-based training with VR technologies in a healthcare context
| Assessment | System function | Identified strengths | Identified weaknesses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strong | F1 | Knowledge development and diffusion | Many Swedish VR companies were market leaders and internationally recognised by experts for their technology innovations (S1) | |
| The number of publications in scientific journals related to surgical simulation-based training has increased exponentially (S2) | ||||
| F4 | Guidance of search | Many experts embraced VR technologies and were actively involved in influencing the direction of development (S5) | ||
| Numbers of editorials related to surgical simulation training have grown steadily during the last decade (S6) | ||||
| F5 | Entrepreneurial experimentation | Sweden is well established in surgical simulation-based training (S7) | ||
| Continuous temporal development of new and enhanced applications for surgery-related procedures (S8) | ||||
| Intermediate | F2 | Legitimation | Increase of publications in Swedish daily newspapers was primarily related to the establishment of regional clinical skills centres (S3) | Inconsistent requirements for simulation-based training stipulated by professional medical societies (W1) |
| F3 | Resource mobilisation | All Swedish university clinics had established clinical skills centres (S4) | Surgical training required educators with surgical skills on expert levels and the availability of such resources was scarce in most centres (W2) | |
| Few clinical skills centres had budgets targeted for postgraduate training and continued professional development for surgical specialities (W3) | ||||
| F6 | Market formation | The total number of VR simulator installations has grown steadily (S9) | A majority of the simulators purchased through public tenders were acquired for research purposes (W4) | |
| Weak | F7 | System-wide synergies | No regulatory requirement for surgical simulation-based training for accreditation purposes (W5) | |
| Assessment | System function | Identified strengths | Identified weaknesses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strong | F1 | Knowledge development and diffusion | Many Swedish VR companies were market leaders and internationally recognised by experts for their technology innovations (S1) | |
| The number of publications in scientific journals related to surgical simulation-based training has increased exponentially (S2) | ||||
| F4 | Guidance of search | Many experts embraced VR technologies and were actively involved in influencing the direction of development (S5) | ||
| Numbers of editorials related to surgical simulation training have grown steadily during the last decade (S6) | ||||
| F5 | Entrepreneurial experimentation | Sweden is well established in surgical simulation-based training (S7) | ||
| Continuous temporal development of new and enhanced applications for surgery-related procedures (S8) | ||||
| Intermediate | F2 | Legitimation | Increase of publications in Swedish daily newspapers was primarily related to the establishment of regional clinical skills centres (S3) | Inconsistent requirements for simulation-based training stipulated by professional medical societies (W1) |
| F3 | Resource mobilisation | All Swedish university clinics had established clinical skills centres (S4) | Surgical training required educators with surgical skills on expert levels and the availability of such resources was scarce in most centres (W2) | |
| Few clinical skills centres had budgets targeted for postgraduate training and continued professional development for surgical specialities (W3) | ||||
| F6 | Market formation | The total number of VR simulator installations has grown steadily (S9) | A majority of the simulators purchased through public tenders were acquired for research purposes (W4) | |
| Weak | F7 | System-wide synergies | No regulatory requirement for surgical simulation-based training for accreditation purposes (W5) | |