Effectiveness of room-of-error interventions for healthcare providers: a systematic review.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING BMC Nursing Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1186/s12912-025-02751-4
Su Jin Jung, Jiwon Kang, Youngjin Lee
{"title":"Effectiveness of room-of-error interventions for healthcare providers: a systematic review.","authors":"Su Jin Jung, Jiwon Kang, Youngjin Lee","doi":"10.1186/s12912-025-02751-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient safety incidents are recognized as significant contributors to patient mortality, thus demanding immediate attention and strategic interventions in healthcare systems. The room-of-error education program serves as a solution, as it provides a case-based learning platform allowing nursing students to identify and resolve medical errors within a controlled environment systematically. This study aimed to identify the context, mechanisms, and outcomes of room-of-error training programs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study adopted a systematic review methodology aligning with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Comprehensive searches were conducted across key databases, including OvidMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL, by utilizing specific terms related to healthcare providers, nursing students, room-of-error education, medical errors, simulation training, and virtual intervention. Included studies focused on healthcare providers or students, error recognition, RFE-related training, and randomized or quasi-experimental trials, while exclusion criteria were non-English/Korean studies, non-original articles, abstracts, and qualitative studies. Risk of bias in the selected studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies version 2.0 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search strategy yielded 2,447 articles, with eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Predominantly quasi-experimental in design, these eight studies primarily focused on nurses as the target population. Simulations were found to be widely integrated into room-of-error programs, emphasizing skill performance and critical thinking. Half of the studies provided preparation time, 37.5% included feedback, and 62.5% covered medication errors, with 87.5% using offline delivery, 62.5% offering individual education, and program durations ranging from 4 to 35 min, with 25% having no time limit for error inspection. Diverse content, including topics such as medication errors and infection control, was found to be delivered through offline or virtual formats and group-based or individual education.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings provide valuable insights into the characteristics and outcomes of room-of-error training programs for healthcare professionals and students. This study emphasizes the significance of practical, case-based approaches in nursing education to augment knowledge, confidence, and competencies, thereby enhancing patient safety in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":48580,"journal":{"name":"BMC Nursing","volume":"24 1","pages":"100"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11773839/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-02751-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient safety incidents are recognized as significant contributors to patient mortality, thus demanding immediate attention and strategic interventions in healthcare systems. The room-of-error education program serves as a solution, as it provides a case-based learning platform allowing nursing students to identify and resolve medical errors within a controlled environment systematically. This study aimed to identify the context, mechanisms, and outcomes of room-of-error training programs.

Methods: This study adopted a systematic review methodology aligning with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Comprehensive searches were conducted across key databases, including OvidMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL, by utilizing specific terms related to healthcare providers, nursing students, room-of-error education, medical errors, simulation training, and virtual intervention. Included studies focused on healthcare providers or students, error recognition, RFE-related training, and randomized or quasi-experimental trials, while exclusion criteria were non-English/Korean studies, non-original articles, abstracts, and qualitative studies. Risk of bias in the selected studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies version 2.0 tool.

Results: The search strategy yielded 2,447 articles, with eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Predominantly quasi-experimental in design, these eight studies primarily focused on nurses as the target population. Simulations were found to be widely integrated into room-of-error programs, emphasizing skill performance and critical thinking. Half of the studies provided preparation time, 37.5% included feedback, and 62.5% covered medication errors, with 87.5% using offline delivery, 62.5% offering individual education, and program durations ranging from 4 to 35 min, with 25% having no time limit for error inspection. Diverse content, including topics such as medication errors and infection control, was found to be delivered through offline or virtual formats and group-based or individual education.

Conclusions: The findings provide valuable insights into the characteristics and outcomes of room-of-error training programs for healthcare professionals and students. This study emphasizes the significance of practical, case-based approaches in nursing education to augment knowledge, confidence, and competencies, thereby enhancing patient safety in clinical practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
针对医疗服务提供者的错误室干预措施的有效性:系统性综述。
背景:患者安全事故被认为是导致患者死亡的重要因素,因此需要医疗保健系统立即予以关注并采取战略性干预措施。错诊室教育项目是一种解决方案,它提供了一个基于案例的学习平台,让护理专业学生在可控环境中系统地识别和解决医疗差错。本研究旨在确定错误室培训计划的背景、机制和结果:本研究采用的系统综述方法符合《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南。通过使用与医护人员、护理专业学生、错误室教育、医疗事故、模拟训练和虚拟干预相关的特定术语,在主要数据库(包括 OvidMEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane 和 CINAHL)中进行了全面检索。纳入的研究主要集中在医护人员或学生、错误识别、RFE 相关培训、随机或准实验性试验等方面,而排除标准为非英语/韩语研究、非原创文章、摘要和定性研究。所选研究的偏倚风险采用非随机研究中的偏倚风险 2.0 版工具进行评估:搜索策略共搜索到 2447 篇文章,其中 8 项研究符合纳入标准。这八项研究以准实验设计为主,主要以护士为目标人群。研究发现,模拟训练被广泛地融入了错误室计划,强调技能表现和批判性思维。一半的研究提供了准备时间,37.5%的研究包括反馈,62.5%的研究涉及用药错误,87.5%的研究采用离线授课,62.5%的研究提供个别教育,项目持续时间从4分钟到35分钟不等,25%的研究对错误检查没有时间限制。研究发现,通过离线或虚拟形式、集体或个人教育提供的内容多种多样,包括用药错误和感染控制等主题:研究结果为医护人员和学生提供了有关错误室培训计划的特点和结果的宝贵见解。这项研究强调了在护理教育中采用基于案例的实用方法来增强知识、信心和能力的重要性,从而提高临床实践中的患者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Nursing
BMC Nursing Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
317
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Nursing is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of nursing research, training, education and practice.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of occupational hazards in midwifery setting and impact of occupational stress and job satisfaction on midwives' quality of work-life: multicenter study in IRAN. Differences in catheter-related complications to insertion site selection for long peripheral intravenous catheters in antimicrobial therapy: a randomized controlled trial. From awareness to action: investigating the impact of big-five teamwork model awareness on rationing of nursing care and patient-centered care. Nursing faculty readiness to teach online: a survey of nursing educators from Saudi Arabia and the UK. The effect of emotional intelligence on nurses' job performance: the mediating role of moral intelligence and occupational stress.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1