One of the questions we get quite often when showing 4HelpVR to training companies is: “Okay, but how would I actually use this during one of my courses?”
And it’s a fair question.
When people hear “VR training”, sometimes the immediate assumption is that you’re supposed to replace what you’re already doing. Put away the manikins, stop the practical exercises, give everyone a headset and suddenly everything happens in virtual reality.
That’s not really how we see it.
If you’re already delivering good first aid training, there are parts of that training that simply make more sense physically. Someone learning CPR should still get their hands on a manikin. They need to understand what compressions actually feel like. If you’re teaching AED use, learners should be able to physically handle an AED trainer, place the pads and become comfortable with the equipment.
VR doesn’t need to replace any of that.
Where we’ve found it becomes interesting is when you treat the headset as another station within the course.
Imagine you’ve got a group going through practical first aid training.
You split them into smaller groups and create four stations.
At the first station, they’re practising CPR on a manikin.
At the second, they’re working through CPR with an AED.
At the third, they’re practising something like the recovery position.
Then at the fourth station, they put on the VR headset.
That’s where things change slightly.
At the other stations, the learner generally knows what’s expected of them. They’re standing in front of a CPR manikin because they’re about to practise CPR.
But that’s not how an actual emergency presents itself.
Nobody walks into a room and tells you, “This is the CPR station. Please begin compressions.”
You walk into a situation and something is wrong.
You have to recognise what’s happening, assess the casualty, remember what you’ve been taught and decide what to do next.
That’s the part we’re trying to bring into the training with VR.
The learner can practise the individual skill physically and then experience that skill within a situation.
And afterwards, the instructor still has an important role. Why did you make that decision? What did you miss? What would you do differently next time?
That’s why we’ve never really liked the idea of positioning VR as a replacement for traditional training. In many cases, the two actually make more sense together.
Fire safety is another good example
Fire extinguisher training makes the argument even clearer.
You can bring a real extinguisher into a classroom. You can show people the pin, explain how it operates, demonstrate how to hold it and talk through the different extinguisher types.
You can also go further and create a live-fire exercise.
But once you’re actually creating fires for people to extinguish, the logistics start adding up.
You need somewhere appropriate to run it. You need the equipment to safely create the fire. Depending on the setup, you may need gas canisters or other consumables. The extinguishers that are discharged need to be refilled or serviced. You also have to manage the safety considerations around repeatedly running a live-fire exercise.
For some training providers, that’s completely manageable and they already do it very well.
For others, particularly when you’re training large numbers of people or delivering courses regularly, it becomes expensive and difficult to repeat.
That’s where we think VR can take some of the pressure off.
You can still physically show someone an extinguisher. Let them hold it. Let them understand how it works.
Then put them into the headset and let them deal with the fire.
Did they choose the correct extinguisher? Did they approach the situation safely? Should they even be attempting to extinguish that particular fire? What happens if they make the wrong decision?
And once they’re finished, reset the scenario and let the next person try.
You’re not pretending that holding a controller or using hand tracking is exactly the same as physically discharging a fire extinguisher. It isn’t.
What you’re adding is the situation around the physical skill.
That’s the part we find interesting.
It doesn’t have to completely change your course
We speak to training companies with very different ways of teaching.
Some might want VR as one station during practical training. Others might use it at the end of the course as a final exercise. Some might use a scenario first, see how the learner responds, teach the relevant material and then let them try the scenario again afterwards.
There’s no reason every training company needs to use it in exactly the same way.
In fact, we’d rather start by asking trainers:
“How do you currently run your course?”
Then we can work out where VR actually adds something.
Maybe it’s one headset and one station.
Maybe it’s four headsets rotating between groups.
Maybe it’s something you only bring out for particular scenarios.
That’s completely fine.
We’ve spent a lot of time demonstrating 4HelpVR to trainers, and one thing has become increasingly clear to us: the best use of VR isn’t necessarily replacing something that already works.
It’s filling the gaps between those things.
The instructor gives you the knowledge.
The manikin gives you the physical practice.
The AED trainer gives you familiarity with the equipment.
And VR can put you into a situation where you have to bring those things together.
That’s ultimately how we’d recommend training companies start thinking about immersive training.
Don’t redesign your entire first aid course around a headset.
Take the course that already works and ask where giving someone the opportunity to experience a realistic scenario would make it better.
Sometimes, that’s all the introduction to VR you need.