Learn how to evaluate VR simulation software for radiography education, including projection, radiation safety, assessment, deployment, and evidence
Learn how to evaluate VR and desktop medical imaging simulation software for radiography education, including projection coverage, radiation safety, assessment, deployment, and evidence.
Medical imaging simulation software is a digital training platform that lets radiography students practise patient positioning, exposure factor selection, image critique, radiation safety, and procedural workflow before working with patients.
The best platforms do more than present static images or simple quizzes. They allow learners to practise, make mistakes, receive feedback, and understand how their decisions affect image quality, patient safety, and occupational radiation exposure.
This guide explains how to evaluate VR and desktop simulation platforms for radiography education, including projection coverage, physics fidelity, curriculum integration, assessment tools, deployment requirements, and published evidence of learning impact.
Suggested internal links:
Explore Virtual Medical Coaching simulation solutions
View Virtual Medical Coaching publications
Request a demo
VR equipment requirements
PC requirements for VR and desktop solutions
Medical imaging simulation software allows students to practise medical imaging skills in a simulated clinical environment.
In radiography education, simulation can support:
Patient positioning
X-ray tube and detector alignment
Exposure factor selection
Image quality evaluation
Radiation safety behaviour
Scatter radiation awareness
Communication and workflow
Clinical decision-making
Student assessment and feedback
Platforms may be delivered through desktop software, virtual reality, or a blended model that combines both.
For radiography programs, the value of simulation lies in repeatable practice. Students can return to the same scenario, correct mistakes, compare outcomes, and build confidence before working with patients.
Radiography education depends on practical judgement. Students need to understand anatomy, equipment, positioning, exposure factors, radiation protection, patient communication, and image critique. These are difficult to master through lectures alone.
Simulation helps programs address several common challenges.
Students can practise radiographic examinations without risk to patients. They can make positioning errors, choose incorrect exposure factors, or struggle with image critique, then see the consequence and correct their approach.
This is especially useful before clinical placement, where learners are expected to arrive with basic procedural confidence and an understanding of safe practice.
O’Connor and Rainford found that first-year radiography students who completed approximately seven hours of immersive VR practice using Virtual Medical Coaching software performed better across 20 of 22 clinical assessment criteria than the control group. The VR-trained cohort performed significantly better in patient positioning, exposure factor selection, image appraisal of patient positioning, and image appraisal of image quality (O’Connor & Rainford, 2023).
Clinical placement is variable. One student may see many chest examinations, while another may encounter fewer opportunities. Rare, complex, or high-risk cases may not appear at the right time in a student’s training.
Simulation allows educators to standardise exposure to important scenarios. Every student can practise the same examination, under the same conditions, with the same learning objectives.
In a study of 188 first-year radiography students in South America, Rowe, Garcia, and Rossi compared VR simulation with physical simulation over a 25-week semester. Both groups were taught the same 31 radiographic views and were assessed in an OSCE using physical X-ray equipment and actors as patients. The VR group completed the OSCE faster and made fewer equipment movement and patient positioning errors, while exposure setting errors did not differ significantly between groups (Rowe et al., 2023).
Clinical placement capacity remains a pressure point for many radiography programs. Simulation can help programs provide structured practice before, during, and after placement.
The College of Radiographers has published updated guidance on practice-based learning hours for pre-registration diagnostic radiography and therapeutic radiography programmes. Programs should check the current guidance directly when deciding how simulation hours can be used in local curriculum design.
Simulation should not be treated as a simple substitute for clinical experience. It is most valuable when it is deliberately mapped to learning outcomes, assessed properly, and used to prepare students for real clinical environments.
This article evaluates medical imaging simulation software using criteria that matter in radiography education, not only visual appeal or headset compatibility.
The main evaluation criteria are:
Projection coverage: whether the platform supports enough examinations and anatomical areas for real curriculum use.
Physics fidelity: whether learner decisions affect positioning, beam geometry, exposure factors, and image appearance.
Radiation safety modelling: whether the platform helps learners understand distance, shielding, scatter radiation, and occupational exposure behaviour.
Assessment workflow: whether educators can review student work, track progress, provide feedback, and use simulation outputs as evidence of learning.
Deployment flexibility: whether the platform supports VR, desktop, standalone headset use, PC-connected VR, classroom demonstration, and independent practice.
Evidence quality: whether the platform is supported by peer-reviewed studies, formal institutional evaluations, or measurable student outcomes.
Curriculum fit: whether scenarios can be mapped to course outcomes, competency frameworks, and assessment requirements.
Published and uploaded studies show several relevant findings for radiography simulation software.
O’Connor et al. introduced Virtual Medical Coaching’s immersive 3D radiography simulation to 105 first-year radiography students at University College Dublin. The survey achieved a 79% response rate. Ninety-four percent of respondents said they would recommend the tool to other students, and students reported improved confidence in beam collimation, anatomical marker placement, X-ray tube centring, and exposure parameter selection (O’Connor et al., 2021).
O’Connor and Rainford compared first-year clinical assessment performance before and after the introduction of immersive VR practice. The VR group performed better across 20 of 22 assessment criteria and achieved significantly better results in patient positioning, exposure factor selection, and image appraisal (O’Connor & Rainford, 2023).
Rowe, Garcia, and Rossi compared VR simulation with physical simulation in 188 first-year radiography students. The VR group completed OSCE tasks faster and made fewer equipment movement and patient positioning errors than the physical simulation group (Rowe et al., 2023).
Arroyo and Garcia followed radiography students across a three-year program and compared a hybrid cohort using X-Ray Pro VR plus physical simulation with a cohort using physical simulation alone. The hybrid cohort achieved higher mean post-test scores, practical exam scores, career readiness, internship performance, motivation, and engagement (Arroyo & Garcia, 2025).
Karimi, Clarke, and Watson compared newly qualified radiographers trained with immersive VR by Virtual Medical Coaching against those trained using traditional simulation. VR-trained radiographers had significantly higher clinical preparedness scores and higher scores for confidence, adaptability, technical proficiency, and problem-solving. They also outperformed traditionally trained radiographers in supervisor evaluations, radiograph quality, and emergency performance (Karimi et al., 2025).
Miller, Schmid, and Abbey evaluated non-immersive VR simulation for image evaluation instruction. Their study found guided simulation instruction was as effective as traditional lecture for first-year students evaluating knee and lumbar spine positioning errors. The study also noted that novice learners could recognise errors from options more readily than independently evaluate diagnostic criteria in essay responses (Miller et al., 2024).
| Study / institution | Modality | Learner group | Outcome measured | Key finding | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O’Connor et al., University College Dublin, 2021 | Immersive 3D VR using Virtual Medical Coaching | First-year undergraduate radiography students | Student experience, confidence, recommendation, perceived skill development | 94% would recommend the tool. Students reported improved confidence in beam collimation, marker placement, X-ray tube centring, and exposure parameter selection. | Add journal link to Radiography paper |
| O’Connor and Rainford, University College Dublin, 2023 | Immersive 3D VR using Virtual Medical Coaching | First-year radiography students | Clinical assessment performance | VR-trained students performed better across 20 of 22 criteria, including significant improvements in patient positioning, exposure factor selection, and image appraisal. | Add journal link to Radiography paper |
| Rowe, Garcia, and Rossi, South America, 2023 | VR simulation compared with physical simulation | 188 first-year radiography students | OSCE duration, equipment movement, positioning errors, exposure errors | VR group completed OSCEs faster and made fewer equipment movement and patient positioning errors. Exposure setting errors were not significantly different. | Add journal link to Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences paper |
| Arroyo and Garcia, 2025 | Hybrid VR plus physical simulation | Undergraduate radiography students across a three-year program | Post-test score, practical exam score, career readiness, internship performance, motivation, engagement | Hybrid cohort achieved higher scores across academic, practical, readiness, motivation, and engagement measures. | Add journal link to Radiologic Technology paper |
| Karimi, Clarke, and Watson, 2025 | Immersive VR compared with traditional simulation | 80 newly qualified diagnostic radiographers | Clinical preparedness, supervisor evaluation, radiograph quality, emergency performance | VR-trained radiographers had significantly higher preparedness scores and outperformed traditionally trained peers in multiple clinical performance measures. | Add journal link to Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences paper |
| Miller, Schmid, and Abbey, 2024 | Non-immersive VR desktop simulation | 33 first-year radiography students | Image evaluation of knee and lumbar spine positioning errors | Guided simulation instruction was as effective as traditional lecture and increased access to authentic image evaluation practice. | Add journal link to Radiography paper |
Different simulation formats support different learning needs. The best choice depends on the task being taught, the available hardware, the teaching environment, and the level of learner experience.
| Simulation format | Best suited for | Main advantage | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| VR simulation | Positioning, radiation safety, spatial awareness, procedural behaviour, immersive clinical scenarios | Gives learners a stronger sense of space, distance, equipment layout, and clinical consequences | Requires suitable headset access, setup, and user orientation |
| Desktop simulation | Image critique, exposure factor revision, self-directed learning, remote access, and preparation before class | Easier to deploy widely and useful for independent practice | Does not provide the same embodied spatial experience as VR |
| Blended VR and desktop simulation | Programs that want immersive lab training and accessible individual practice | Supports flexible teaching across classrooms, labs, and remote study | Requires clear curriculum planning so each format is used appropriately |
VR is particularly useful when learners need to understand space, distance, body positioning, equipment orientation, and radiation safety behaviour. Desktop simulation is useful when learners need accessible practice, revision, image critique, or structured preparation before practical sessions.
For most radiography programs, the strongest model is blended. VR supports immersive practice. Desktop simulation supports access, repetition, and revision.
| Simulation type | What it provides | Strength | Limitation | Best use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basic image library | Pre-existing images, cases, or examples | Useful for image recognition and discussion | Learners may not see the consequence of their own positioning or exposure choices | Image critique, revision, case discussion |
| Dynamic simulation | Simulated response to learner choices | Helps connect technical decisions with image outcomes | May vary in realism depending on the software model | Exposure factor selection, positioning correction, image quality learning |
| VR simulation | Immersive 3D clinical environment | Supports spatial awareness, workflow, equipment orientation, and radiation safety behaviour | Requires headset access and orientation support | Practical positioning, procedural workflow, scatter awareness |
| Blended simulation | Combined VR and desktop learning | Supports lab-based practice and independent revision | Needs deliberate curriculum mapping | Programs seeking flexible, repeatable simulation across multiple teaching contexts |
Choosing medical imaging simulation software should not be based only on headset compatibility or visual appearance. The most important question is whether the platform supports meaningful learning, assessment, and curriculum integration.
| Evaluation area | What to look for | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Projection coverage | Full-body radiographic projections, not isolated examples | Supports use across multiple courses and year levels |
| Physics fidelity | Real-time response to positioning, beam geometry, and exposure factor changes | Helps students connect technical decisions with image outcomes |
| Radiation safety | Scatter visualisation, shielding, distance, and dose feedback | Supports safer clinical behaviour |
| Deployment | VR, desktop, or blended delivery | Allows use across labs, classrooms, and remote learning |
| Assessment | Student portfolios, educator review, progress tracking, and feedback | Turns simulation into measurable learning |
| Evidence | Peer-reviewed publications and formal evaluations | Reduces reliance on vendor claims |
| Curriculum fit | Scenario mapping to learning outcomes and assessment requirements | Helps simulation become part of formal teaching rather than a one-off activity |
A useful radiography simulation platform needs sufficient projection coverage to support real curriculum use.
A limited set of example cases may be useful for demonstration, but it will not support a full radiography program. Educators need enough anatomical coverage and projection variety to teach positioning, correction, decision-making, and image evaluation across the curriculum.
Virtual Medical Coaching’s X-Ray Pro VR includes approximately 140 projections covering the full body, from skull to pelvis.
Confirm final projection number before publication.
Strong simulation software should help students understand:
How patient positioning affects the final image
How beam centring and collimation affect image quality
How detector placement changes the result
How anatomical landmarks guide positioning
How errors can be identified and corrected
The key test is simple: does the learner see the consequence of their action?
If the platform only shows pre-rendered outcomes, the learning is limited. If the platform responds dynamically to the student’s decisions, it can support deeper understanding.
Radiography students need to understand the relationship between exposure factors and image quality. This includes density, contrast, noise, sharpness, and the appearance of underexposure or overexposure.
A strong platform should allow learners to adjust exposure factors and see how those choices affect the image. This helps connect theoretical physics with practical radiographic decision-making.
Virtual Medical Coaching’s simulation environment is built around real-time radiographic image response. When learners adjust exposure factors, positioning, or beam geometry, they can see how those changes influence the simulated radiograph.
In Karimi et al.’s 2025 mixed-methods study, learners using VR could observe the effects of kVp and mAs on image quality before post-processing, helping them understand radiographic principles that can be concealed in modern digital radiography systems.
Suggested visual:
Figure 1: Example of image response to exposure factor change
Caption: A simulated radiograph can help learners connect exposure factor selection with image quality before working with patients.
Radiation safety is difficult to teach through slides alone. Students and clinicians may understand ALARA principles conceptually, but still struggle to apply them under clinical conditions.
Simulation can make radiation safety visible.
RadSafe VR allows learners to observe scatter radiation, shielding effectiveness, distance, and positioning decisions in an immersive environment. This is particularly valuable for interventional and fluoroscopic settings, where staff behaviour directly affects occupational exposure.
Radiation safety simulation can support training for:
Radiographers
Cardiologists
Interventional radiology teams
Scrub nurses
Theatre staff
Students preparing for fluoroscopy environments
A good radiation safety platform should not only tell learners to stand further away or use shielding. It should show why those behaviours matter.
Suggested visual:
Figure 2: Scatter radiation visualisation in RadSafe VR
Caption: Scatter visualisation helps learners understand how distance, shielding, staff position, and workflow choices affect occupational exposure.
Simulation becomes more valuable when it is embedded into the curriculum rather than used as an isolated activity.
Radiography programs should look for platforms that support:
Scenario mapping to course outcomes
Individual student accounts
Educator review
Image portfolio creation
Performance tracking
Feedback workflows
Evidence of completion
Repeated attempts and progression over time
Virtual Medical Coaching includes the VMC WebPortal, which supports student image portfolios and educator review. This allows simulation work to become part of formal teaching and assessment rather than remaining a separate lab activity.
For educators, this is important. Simulation should produce evidence of learning, not just engagement.
Suggested visual:
Figure 3: Student portfolio and educator review workflow
Caption: Portfolio review allows educators to assess learner outputs, provide feedback, and connect simulation activity to course outcomes.
A simulation platform must work within the practical constraints of the institution.
Some programs have dedicated VR labs. Others use shared teaching rooms, small clinical skills spaces, or desktop access for independent study. Some need standalone headsets. Others may use PC-connected VR. Many need a combination.
Virtual Medical Coaching supports both VR and desktop simulation. The platform can be used with supported standalone and PC-connected VR environments, as well as desktop environments.
Programs should check the current equipment and PC requirements before implementation, including headset compatibility, graphics requirements for VR mode, wireless network requirements, and classroom or lab setup.
This matters because deployment is often where simulation projects fail. A strong platform should match the institution’s available space, IT capacity, hardware budget, and teaching model.
Programs should ask:
Does the software run on standalone VR headsets?
Is a VR-ready PC required?
Is desktop access available?
Can students practise independently?
Can the platform support classroom demonstration?
Can educators review student work after the session?
What IT support is required for installation and updates?
How are student accounts created and managed?
How are updates deployed?
Can the platform support multiple cohorts?
The best simulation platform is not only educationally strong. It must also be practical to operate.
Radiography programs should ask vendors for evidence, not just demonstrations.
The important point is not that simulation looks impressive in a demonstration. The important point is whether it improves learning in a measurable way.
Programs should review evidence carefully and ask whether the published findings match their own teaching goals.
Useful questions include:
Was the study conducted independently?
Who were the learners?
Was the outcome measured objectively?
Was the outcome educationally meaningful?
Was there a comparison group or baseline?
Was the result linked to practice, assessment, dose, confidence, readiness, or retention?
Does the study setting resemble the program’s own teaching environment?
Where studies are conducted by external academic institutions, readers should also review each paper’s funding, conflict of interest, ethics, and author statements.
Before choosing a medical imaging simulation platform, radiography programs should ask practical, educational, and evidence-based questions.
Which projections are included?
Which anatomical areas are covered?
Can the platform support more than one year level?
Can scenarios be mapped to our learning outcomes?
Can the platform support both introductory and advanced teaching?
Can it be used before, during, and after clinical placement?
Does the software simulate real consequences?
Can learners change positioning, beam geometry, collimation, and exposure factors?
Does the image change in response to learner decisions?
Can learners repeat scenarios and compare outcomes?
Can the platform support image critique and correction?
Does the platform teach radiation safety behaviour?
Does it show scatter radiation?
Does it show the effect of shielding, distance, and positioning?
Does it support fluoroscopy or interventional environments?
Can radiation safety outcomes be assessed?
Does each student have an individual account?
Can educators review saved work?
Can learners build image portfolios?
Can performance be tracked over time?
Can feedback be linked to specific attempts or images?
Can results be exported or reviewed for quality assurance?
Does it run in VR?
Does it also support desktop use?
Can it run on standalone headsets?
Does it require PC-connected VR?
What hardware is required?
How are software updates managed?
What support is available during onboarding?
What happens if the institution expands to larger cohorts?
Is there peer-reviewed evidence?
Are outcomes measurable?
Are the studies relevant to radiography education?
Can the vendor provide implementation guidance?
Can the platform support internal evaluation?
Does the vendor provide documentation for IT, privacy, and procurement review?
Clinical competency is not built from theory alone. Students need repeated opportunities to apply knowledge, receive feedback, and refine their judgement.
Medical imaging simulation can support competency development by allowing students to practise the same skill multiple times under controlled conditions.
For example, a student learning chest radiography can practise:
Patient positioning
Image receptor placement
Beam centring
Collimation
Exposure factor selection
Breathing instructions
Image critique
Error correction
In a traditional lab, this may depend on room availability, educator time, peer volunteers, or access to equipment. In simulation, the learner can repeat the task until the principles become clearer.
This does not replace real patients. It prepares students to work with real patients more safely and confidently.
This distinction is important. O’Connor et al. reported that students valued immersive VR as a supplement to clinical skills labs and placement, not as a replacement. Miller et al. also found that novice learners benefited from guided simulation but had not yet reached the level needed to independently evaluate all diagnostic criteria without support.
Before choosing a platform, radiography programs should ask the following questions.
Does the platform support the projections and examinations your curriculum requires?
Can scenarios be mapped to learning outcomes?
Can it support multiple year levels?
Can it be used for both introductory and advanced teaching?
Does it support radiation safety training?
Does it support image critique?
Does it support clinical decision-making?
Does the software simulate real consequences?
Can learners adjust positioning and exposure factors?
Does the image change in response to learner decisions?
Does the platform support image critique?
Can students repeat scenarios and improve over time?
Does the platform encourage reflection and correction?
Does each student have an individual account?
Can educators review student work?
Is there a student portfolio?
Can performance be tracked?
Can feedback be linked to specific images or attempts?
Can educators see evidence of completion?
Can results support formal assessment or quality assurance?
Does the software run in VR?
Does it also support desktop use?
Can it run on standalone headsets?
Does it require high-powered PCs?
Can it be used in small teaching spaces?
What support is required from IT?
Can it support remote or self-directed learning?
Can it be scaled across a larger cohort?
Is there peer-reviewed evidence?
Are outcomes measurable?
Can the platform support internal evaluation?
Does it produce records that help with quality assurance?
Is the vendor able to support implementation over time?
Can the vendor provide privacy, security, and procurement documentation?
The most effective simulation projects are planned around learning outcomes, not hardware.
A sensible implementation usually starts with a defined teaching problem. For example:
Students need more confidence before first clinical placement.
Students need more practice with positioning errors.
Students need better understanding of exposure factor selection.
Students need structured radiation safety training.
Educators need more consistent assessment evidence.
Clinical placement opportunities are variable.
Once the teaching problem is clear, the simulation can be mapped to the curriculum.
A pilot should be large enough to produce meaningful data, but focused enough to manage well.
A useful pilot might involve:
One year group
One course or teaching block
A defined set of scenarios
A pre-session and post-session evaluation
Educator review of student outputs
A short student feedback process
A clear decision point for wider rollout
The pilot should not only ask whether students enjoyed the simulation. It should ask whether the simulation improved readiness, confidence, image critique, technical understanding, assessment quality, or clinical preparation.
Simulation should be connected directly to the curriculum.
| Curriculum area | Simulation activity | Evidence of learning |
|---|---|---|
| Projection positioning | Student completes selected projections in VR | Saved image portfolio and educator review |
| Exposure factors | Student adjusts parameters and compares outcomes | Image quality critique and reflection |
| Radiation safety | Student practises shielding and distance decisions | Scenario score, behaviour review, and feedback |
| Clinical decision-making | Student responds to scenario constraints | Attempt history and educator discussion |
| Image evaluation | Student identifies positioning and exposure errors | Written critique or structured quiz |
This turns simulation into a formal teaching tool rather than a novelty.
Simulation can support different stages of learning.
Before placement, students can use simulation to build familiarity with equipment, positioning, patient communication, image critique, and workflow.
During placement, simulation can be used to revisit difficult examinations or prepare for cases the student has not yet seen.
After placement, simulation can support consolidation, reflection, revision, and assessment.
This creates a stronger connection between classroom teaching, simulated practice, and clinical experience.
Virtual Medical Coaching develops simulation software specifically for radiography, radiation safety, medical imaging education, and healthcare simulation.
The platform is designed around practical teaching needs, including image formation, projection positioning, exposure factor selection, radiation safety behaviour, assessment, and curriculum integration.
X-Ray Pro VR is not a slideshow of fixed images. Learners can adjust positioning, exposure factors, and beam geometry, then see the effect on the simulated radiograph.
This helps students understand the relationship between action and outcome.
The platform includes approximately 140 projections covering the full body, allowing educators to use simulation across a wider curriculum.
Confirm final projection number before publication.
This supports repeated practice, structured progression, and multi-year integration.
RadSafe VR helps learners understand scatter radiation, shielding, distance, and occupational exposure behaviour.
This is especially relevant for fluoroscopy, interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, theatre imaging, and other environments where staff radiation protection is critical.
Virtual Medical Coaching supports both immersive VR and desktop simulation. This allows programs to combine spatial, immersive training with accessible practice and revision.
Institutions should review the current VMC equipment guidance and PC requirements before implementation.
The VMC WebPortal supports student image portfolios, educator review, and feedback. This helps institutions use simulation as part of formal teaching and assessment.
Suggested visual:
Figure 4: Educator review of student portfolio
Caption: Educator review tools help simulation become part of structured teaching, feedback, and assessment.
Virtual Medical Coaching’s simulation tools have been used in peer-reviewed research and formal educational evaluations. The evidence base includes student experience studies, clinical assessment studies, OSCE comparisons, longitudinal hybrid simulation research, and clinical preparedness research.
Programs can review published work and assess whether the evidence aligns with their own teaching goals.
Suggested internal link:
View Virtual Medical Coaching publications
The best medical imaging simulation software for radiography education should allow students to practise patient positioning, exposure factor selection, image critique, radiation safety, and clinical workflow in a repeatable learning environment.
Programs should look for realistic projection coverage, assessment tools, deployment flexibility, educator review, and peer-reviewed evidence of educational impact.
VR is strongest when learners need spatial practice, positioning, radiation safety behaviour, and realistic clinical decision-making. Desktop simulation is useful for access, revision, image critique, and self-directed learning.
Many radiography programs benefit from using both.
Simulation should not be treated as a simple replacement for clinical placement. It is best used to prepare students before placement, standardise practice opportunities, support competency development, and provide structured feedback before learners work with patients.
Programs should check the current guidance from their regulator, professional body, and education provider before deciding how simulation hours can contribute to formal training requirements.
The number of simulation hours that can count toward radiography training depends on the jurisdiction, regulator, professional body, education provider, and course approval requirements.
In the United Kingdom, programs should check the College of Radiographers’ current guidance on practice-based learning hours for pre-registration diagnostic and therapeutic radiography programmes.
Programs outside the UK should confirm requirements with their local accrediting body before treating simulation hours as part of formal practice-based learning.
Evidence includes peer-reviewed studies, formal institutional evaluations, assessment comparisons, learner confidence measures, OSCE outcomes, image critique performance, knowledge retention, work readiness, graduate preparedness, and radiation safety behaviour measures.
Published studies using Virtual Medical Coaching software have reported improved student confidence, better performance in selected clinical assessment criteria, fewer OSCE movement and positioning errors, improved hybrid cohort outcomes across a three-year program, and higher clinical preparedness among newly qualified radiographers.
Hardware requirements depend on the software, headset, deployment model, and whether the institution uses standalone or PC-connected VR.
Programs should check:
Supported headset models
Whether a VR-ready PC is required
Graphics card requirements
Wi-Fi requirements for wireless deployment
Controller requirements
Room setup requirements
Student account setup
IT installation and update process
Virtual Medical Coaching provides current equipment and PC requirement guidance through its help centre.
Programs should assess simulation outcomes using measurable evidence, not only student satisfaction.
Useful measures include:
Completion records
Saved image portfolios
Educator review
Image critique tasks
Pre-session and post-session confidence measures
Technical accuracy checks
Scenario performance
Reflection tasks
OSCE preparation outcomes
Clinical readiness indicators
The best assessment model links simulation activity directly to course outcomes and educator feedback.
Yes. Virtual Medical Coaching provides simulation tools across VR and desktop formats, allowing programs to use immersive training in labs and accessible desktop learning for individual practice, revision, and assessment.
Radiation safety simulation helps learners see how distance, shielding, positioning, and procedural behaviour affect scatter radiation and occupational exposure. This makes radiation protection principles more visible and easier to apply in clinical settings.
Medical imaging simulation software can be used by undergraduate radiography programs, universities, hospitals, simulation centres, radiation safety educators, interventional teams, and clinical departments that need structured training before or alongside clinical practice.
Medical imaging simulation software should help learners do more than complete a digital activity. It should help them develop practical judgement, understand clinical consequences, and build confidence before working with patients.
Virtual Medical Coaching supports radiography and radiation safety education through VR and desktop simulation, broad projection coverage, radiation safety visualisation, educator review tools, and evidence-led development.
Explore Virtual Medical Coaching simulation solutions
View publications and evidence
Review VR equipment requirements
Arroyo, S., & Garcia, A. (2025). Enhancing educational outcomes through hybrid simulation methods. Radiologic Technology, 96(4), 257-264.
Karimi, H., Clarke, S., & Watson, E. (2025). Comparing clinical preparedness of newly qualified diagnostic radiographers trained with immersive virtual reality vs. traditional simulation: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.882
Miller, E. M., Schmid, K. K., & Abbey, B. M. (2024). The effect of non-immersive virtual reality radiographic positioning simulation on first-year radiography students’ image evaluation performance. Radiography, 30, 1180-1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2024.05.011
O’Connor, M., Stowe, J., Potocnik, J., Giannotti, N., Murphy, S., & Rainford, L. (2021). 3D virtual reality simulation in radiography education: The students’ experience. Radiography, 27(1), 208-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2020.07.017
O’Connor, M., & Rainford, L. (2023). The impact of 3D virtual reality radiography practice on student performance in clinical practice. Radiography, 29(1), 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2022.10.033
Rowe, D., Garcia, A., & Rossi, B. (2023). Comparison of virtual reality and physical simulation training in first-year radiography students in South America. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, 70(2), 120-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.639
College of Radiographers. (2025). Position statement: College of Radiographers update on practice-based learning hours for pre-registration diagnostic radiography and therapeutic radiography programmes. Society of Radiographers.
Virtual Medical Coaching. (2026). Publications. Virtual Medical Coaching.
Virtual Medical Coaching. (2026). What VR equipment will I need? Virtual Medical Coaching Help Center.
Virtual Medical Coaching. (2026). PC requirements for Virtual Medical Coaching VR and desktop solutions. Virtual Medical Coaching Help Center.
Virtual Medical Coaching offers the only stand-alone VR for radiation safety and radiography training, delivering simplicity and lower costs than...
2026 US simulation grants for VR labs, radiologic technology, radiation safety, and midwifery simulation, VR-ready PCs, and immersive education...
Explore how VR boosts clinical training in medical imaging, radiation safety, and midwifery through immersive, repeatable, and cost-effective...
Subscribe to our news, updates and more.