The short answer
VR is used in healthcare training for surgical rehearsal, emergency scenarios, clinical skills, communication training and patient education. Published evidence is strongest for procedural training: a 2020 randomized trial found 75–78% of VR-trained participants completed a tibial nailing procedure versus 25% with a technique guide alone, and a 2021 systematic review found improved procedural times, task completion and accuracy. Studies are often small and varied, so projects should define measurable outcomes and pilot against current training.
Where VR is used
| Use | What learners practise |
|---|---|
| Surgical rehearsal | Procedure steps, instrument handling, decision points |
| Emergency and resuscitation | Team roles, timing, decisions under pressure |
| Clinical and nursing skills | Assessments, equipment use, infection control routines |
| Communication and empathy | Difficult conversations, breaking bad news, patient perspectives |
| Patient education | Explaining procedures and reducing anxiety before treatment |
What published studies found
A randomized trial in orthopaedic surgery
Orland and colleagues, in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (2020), randomly assigned participants to learn tibial intramedullary nailing with a technique guide, with VR, or with VR plus the guide. Only 2 of 8 (25%) in the guide-only group completed the procedure, compared with 6 of 8 (75%) in the VR group and 7 of 9 (78%) in the VR-plus-guide group. The sample was small, but the difference was significant.
A systematic review of surgical VR
Mao and colleagues reviewed studies of immersive VR for surgical skills in the Journal of Surgical Research (2021). They reported that high-quality, though heterogeneous, studies showed improved procedural times, task completion and accuracy, positive user ratings and cost-effectiveness.
Beyond healthcare
In corporate training, PwC's 2019 pilot found VR learners trained faster and felt more confident applying what they learned, though content cost more up front. That study was about soft skills, not clinical skills, so treat it as context rather than proof for medical use.
Limits of the evidence
- Small samples: many trials involve tens of participants, not hundreds.
- Heterogeneity: different procedures, devices and measures make results hard to combine.
- Transfer: fewer studies measure performance on real patients or patient outcomes.
- Novelty: enthusiasm for new technology can inflate short-term results.
None of this means VR does not work; it means each programme should measure its own results.
Regulation and privacy
Training and education apps are generally not regulated as medical devices, because they are not used to diagnose or treat patients. The FDA does review AR and VR products that are medical devices, so if a project moves toward diagnosis, treatment or patient-specific planning, check the regulatory position early. Training apps must still respect hospital IT security and privacy rules, especially if they use real patient data or recordings.
Designing a healthcare VR project
- Involve clinical educators from day one to define the learning outcomes.
- Choose a procedure or scenario with a clear, measurable skill.
- Script steps, decision points and common errors with subject experts.
- Build guided, practice and assessment modes.
- Pilot against current training and measure the agreed outcomes.
- Plan hygiene, device management and content updates.
Choosing what to measure
| Outcome | Example measure |
|---|---|
| Knowledge | Correct steps recalled in an assessment |
| Procedural skill | Completion rate, errors and time on a standardised task or simulator |
| Team performance | Time to key actions in a simulated emergency |
| Confidence | Self-rated readiness before and after training |
| Retention | Repeat assessment weeks later |
| Transfer | Performance observed in supervised real practice |
Agree the measures with clinical educators before building, and collect a baseline from current training so results can be compared fairly. Even a small, well-measured pilot is more persuasive to a hospital than a large rollout with no data.
VR, mannequins or both?
VR does not replace physical simulation. Mannequin-based simulation remains essential for hands-on skills such as compressions or airway management, where touch and force matter. VR adds value where scenarios are expensive to stage, rare, or hard to repeat consistently: unusual complications, mass-casualty events, or rehearsing a procedure's sequence many times before a supervised session. Many programmes use VR for preparation and repetition, then physical simulation and supervised practice for hands-on skill.
Practical considerations in hospitals
- Hygiene: wipeable face covers and cleaning routines between users.
- Time: short modules that fit around shifts.
- Space: a safe area for standing scenarios.
- Support: someone on site who can start sessions and fix problems.
Costs
A focused proof of concept, such as one procedure or one scenario, fits our VR packages from $999, and a complete training app starts around $2,999. Multi-scenario platforms, multiplayer team training and integrations are quoted individually. See our VR cost guide for what drives budgets.
Working with us
We build VR training in Unity with clinical educators setting the content and outcomes. See VR development and our article on VR training ROI.
Sources: Orland et al. 2020, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (PMC) · Mao et al. 2021, Journal of Surgical Research · FDA: AR and VR medical devices · PwC: VR soft skills training study. Checked October 20, 2026.
Related: VR development · VR & AR packages · Unity app development
Originally published on A Plus Games Studio, a game, AR and VR development studio in Sacramento, CA.
Top comments (0)