If you’ve spent any time around Australian health conferences this year, you’ve probably noticed a shift. The conversation about VR in hospitals has moved past novelty demos and into something more grounded. Clinicians are asking practical questions — not “isn’t this cool?” but “does this actually improve outcomes?”

In a growing number of cases, the answer is yes.

Pain Management Without More Opioids

The most established clinical use for VR in Australian healthcare is pain management, and for good reason. The evidence base is solid.

At Royal Melbourne Hospital, the burns unit has been running VR distraction therapy during wound dressing changes for over two years now. Patients wear a headset showing calming underwater environments while nurses change dressings — a procedure that’s notoriously painful. The results have been striking. Patients consistently report 30-40% reductions in pain scores, and several have been able to reduce their opioid doses as a result.

What makes this compelling isn’t just the pain reduction. It’s the timing. Australia is grappling with opioid prescribing concerns, and any intervention that can safely reduce reliance on strong painkillers is worth paying attention to.

Similar programs are running at Westmead Hospital in Sydney and at the Royal Adelaide. Each has adapted the approach slightly for their patient populations, but the core principle is the same: immersive distraction works, particularly for procedural pain.

Physiotherapy Gets More Engaging

Anyone who’s done a course of physiotherapy knows the challenge. The exercises are repetitive, the progress is slow, and motivation drops off a cliff after the first few weeks. VR is starting to address this in some interesting ways.

At a private rehabilitation clinic in Brisbane, stroke patients are using VR-based movement programs that turn arm and hand exercises into interactive tasks — reaching for virtual objects, manipulating shapes, playing simplified games. The physios there report that patients complete more repetitions per session and, critically, are more likely to stick with their home exercise programs when a VR component is involved.

Epworth Healthcare in Melbourne has taken a different approach, using VR for balance and gait training with neurological patients. Patients walk on a treadmill while a headset presents environments with varying levels of visual complexity. It lets the clinical team gradually increase challenge in ways that are difficult to replicate in a standard gym.

The data is still early-stage for most of these programs. We’re talking about small cohorts and limited follow-up periods. But the direction is promising, and the patient feedback is overwhelmingly positive.

Surgical Planning in Three Dimensions

This one gets less attention in the mainstream press, but it might have the biggest long-term impact.

Several Australian surgical teams are now using VR to plan complex procedures. Instead of reviewing CT and MRI scans on a flat screen, surgeons can step inside a three-dimensional reconstruction of the patient’s anatomy. They can rotate organs, measure distances, and rehearse their approach before making a single incision.

The Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre has been particularly active here, using VR planning for complex tumour resections. The surgical team has reported that VR planning has changed their surgical approach in roughly one in five cases — meaning they would have done the operation differently without the 3D visualisation.

St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney is running a similar program for cardiac surgery, allowing surgeons to examine patient-specific heart models before valve replacements and other structural procedures.

The hardware requirements are modest. Most of these programs run on standard Meta Quest headsets with specialised medical software. The cost per case is low enough that the ROI argument is straightforward if it prevents even occasional complications or reduces theatre time.

Mental Health Applications Are Growing

VR exposure therapy for anxiety disorders and PTSD has been researched for decades, but it’s only recently become practical in Australian clinical settings. The equipment is now cheap enough, portable enough, and reliable enough for regular outpatient use.

Clinics in Sydney and Melbourne are using VR exposure therapy for specific phobias, social anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. The approach lets therapists control the environment precisely — adjusting the intensity of triggers in ways that aren’t possible with in-vivo exposure.

For PTSD treatment in particular, several programs adapted from US military research are being trialled with Australian veterans through partnerships with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Early results are encouraging, though clinicians are careful to note that VR is a tool within a broader treatment framework, not a standalone cure.

What’s Holding Things Back

Despite the progress, VR adoption in Australian healthcare faces real barriers. Infection control is a constant concern — headsets need thorough cleaning between patients, and not all devices are designed with that in mind. Procurement processes in public hospitals are slow, and IT departments are often cautious about introducing new networked devices.

There’s also the question of clinical evidence standards. While many of these applications have promising pilot data, we’re still waiting for the large-scale randomised controlled trials that would make VR a standard-of-care recommendation in clinical guidelines.

And then there’s the workforce issue. Clinicians need training not just in how to operate the equipment, but in how to integrate VR into clinical workflows without adding burden to already stretched teams.

Where This Goes Next

The trajectory is clear. VR in Australian healthcare is moving from experimental to operational, one department at a time. It’s not revolutionary — it’s incremental, evidence-driven, and pragmatic. Which, frankly, is exactly how good clinical innovation should work.

The hospitals that are getting this right aren’t trying to transform everything at once. They’re picking specific clinical problems where VR has a clear mechanism of action, running proper evaluations, and scaling what works. That’s the model worth following.