Table 6.
Results of the ethnographic interviews (n=8).
| Characteristic | Statistics, n (%) | |
| Issues in case presentation | ||
| Inaccurate or unclear communication of patient anatomy | 3 (38) | |
| Teaching difficulties for new learners | 2 (25) | |
| Varying image interpretations | 2 (25) | |
| Conveying the acuity of the clinical situation | 1 (13) | |
| Ease of bringing up relevant imaging in clinic or operating room | 1 (13) | |
| Not knowing what anatomy will look like in real time | 1 (13) | |
| Special training and software requirement for assessing MRIa | 1 (13) | |
| Limited applicability of some technologies | 1 (13) | |
| Reason to modify surgical plans | ||
| Anatomy or intraoperative findings | 4 (50) | |
| Imaging inputs or new information from old surgical records | 1 (13) | |
| Need to be innovative | 1 (13) | |
| Perceived impact of surgical plan modification | ||
| Unclear | 3 (38) | |
| Increased operating room time | 3 (38) | |
| Greater morbidity | 1 (13) | |
| Anticipated improved outcome | 1 (13) | |
| Could this information have surfaced during case planning? | ||
| Maybe | 7 (88) | |
| Yes | 1 (13) | |
| No | 0 (0) | |
| Gaps during case presentation | ||
| Communicating anatomical details | 4 (50) | |
| Case presenters unaware of priorities | 1 (13) | |
| Lack of retrievable mental imagery | 1 (13) | |
| Imaging limitations | 1 (13) | |
| Equipment readiness and reliability | 1 (13) | |
| Lack of clear problem statement and next steps | 1 (13) | |
| Potential apps for VRb | ||
| Improve imaging of complex cases | 3 (38) | |
| Improve communication | 2 (25) | |
| Better planning | 2 (25) | |
| Dynamic and accurate measurements of anatomy | 1 (13) | |
| Display anatomy of complex cardiac repairs | 1 (13) | |
| Educate patients on complex cases | 1 (13) | |
| Things liked about the VR experience | ||
| Learning about new technology | 5 (63) | |
| Knowing what is new out there | 3 (38) | |
| Interesting interface | 1 (13) | |
| Interesting anatomical models | 1 (13) | |
| Clear instructions and specific tasks | 1 (13) | |
| Interactive learning as you go | 1 (13) | |
| Relaxed atmosphere | 1 (13) | |
| Things missing in the VR experience | ||
| Clinical context or applicability to respondent’s scope of practice | 3 (38) | |
| Unsure if investigators were provided with useful information | 2 (25) | |
| Benefit of VR over current systems | 2 (25) | |
| Lack of understanding of controller setup before starting task | 1 (13) | |
| Nothing | 1 (13) | |
| Preferences for VR interface control | ||
| Single person mode | 4 (50) | |
| Both | 2 (25) | |
| Only as an adjunct | 1 (13) | |
| No answer | 1 (13) | |
| Alternative apps of VR | ||
| Trainee education | 7 (88) | |
| Patient education | 2 (25) | |
| Plan for appropriate devices necessary for treatment | 1 (13) | |
| Warm up or practice | 1 (13) | |
| Team communications | 1 (13) | |
| Role of librarians in graduate medical education | ||
| Teaching resource via repository of VR images collected | 3 (38) | |
| Provide space, apps, and equipment | 3 (38) | |
| Serve as part of the team | 1 (13) | |
| Inform and educate the community | 1 (13) | |
| Train on VR environment | 1 (13) | |
| Invest in VR | 1 (13) | |
| Role of library in graduate medical education | ||
| Unsure | 3 (38) | |
| Increase access to case materials for presentations | 2 (25) | |
| Find more apps | 1 (13) | |
| Provide strategies for research into clinical topics | 1 (13) | |
aMRI: magnetic resonance imaging.
bVR: virtual reality.