Discussion
This pilot study collected observation and anonymous self-report data using specifically designed pre- post and follow up surveys. Key evaluation themes included end user acceptance, practical feasibility, and training impacts. Surveys were accessed using a QR code for direct data capture using Question Pro software.
The following results have been extrapolated from the study evaluations:
61.6% of participants reported receiving previous emotional regulation training, but not routinely (53% minimal, 20% no recollection, 18% unsure). The use of emotional regulation strategies was relatively high (68%) with specific strategies used often (22%) or sometimes (46%) whilst 12% never used a specific skill.
93.3% of participants reported weekly exposure to stressful or highly challenging situations, 6.7% reported situations but not every week. Similarly, 95% reported at least weekly encounters with distressed consumers, with 5% reporting regular but not weekly occurrence.
48% of participants had not previously used virtual reality technology, whilst 5% reported regular use. 14% had reservations around familiarity with the technology and possible cybersickness symptoms (motion sickness, headache, nausea). Of the eight participants (14%) reporting cyber sickness susceptibility, only one experienced mild nausea. Of the 5 (9%) who were unsure, only 1 reported disorientation after training. 83.3% of participants reported no adverse effects during or after training.
Educators felt confident setting up and using training equipment, with two reporting virtual reality technology as useful in healthcare training, whilst two remained neutral. One was unsure of the benefit, however, their attitude shifted post training reporting possible benefits to their and staff's practice.
Participants reported the technology and training program as easy to use. The general design, style and format was considered interesting, enjoyable, and appropriate, providing a cohesive flow of learning activities.
The training program's impact and value was considered very high, particularly for practical skills development, improved knowledge and comprehension of stress management and de-escalation. These positive perceptions remained high for weeks post training, suggesting an ongoing and sustained positive training impact.
Participants, both immediately after (62%) and at follow-up (54%) reported the training's interactive; immersive; realistic; private; convenient; safe; non-judgmental learning environment, as particularly beneficial. Participants repeatedly mentioned the benefit of using the evidence-based strategies in both their private and professional lives (18%). Whilst there was a reduction in recollection of psycho-educational components over time, practical skill utilisation increased, suggesting a possible reduction in the theory to practice gap.
95% of participants and Educators reported the training program as a valuable addition to existing de-escalation training. 63% of participants reported the training program as useful in its current form with only minor changes or inclusions suggested for future program use in mental health.
94% of participants reported using the training's practical skills after the workshop. 6% reported not using the skills due to a lack of opportunity or reason to do so. Interestingly, 32% reported not using specific stress management skills before training. This promising outcome reflects a behavioural change and practical uptake of stress management skills.
95% of participants reported being likely or extremely likely (30% and 65% respectively) to use skills when encountering a distressed consumer. Participants utilised emotional regulation skills largely after engaging with a distressed consumer (81%) and or during the interaction (52%). Before training, two participants could not confidently recognise stress response activation, with one unable to define grounding. After training, all three participants reported moderate confidence in these areas, reflecting an increase in both knowledge and skill which remained high at two to six weeks post training.
Comparing pre and post training responses, participants reported a significant increase in confidence for all strategies and skills delivered in training. Importantly, participants reported a significant increase in this confidence two to six weeks post training completion, potentially influencing effective management of challenging events and provision of support to distressed consumers.
Participants and Educators considered the training program as valuable, purporting that all staff would be likely to benefit from training at regular intervals. Interestingly, access to virtual reality technology equipment was considered the greatest challenge to future training.
