ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2021
Multiprofessional perspectives on the identification of latent safety threats via in situ simulation: a prospective cohort pilot study.
Article in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The use of healthcare simulation to identify and address latent safety threats: a scoping review.Frontiers in health services · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To describe the association between participant profession and the number and type of latent safety threats (LSTs) identified during in situ simulation (ISS). Secondary objectives were to describe the association between both (a) participants' years of experience and LST identification and (b) type of scenario and number of identified LSTs. Methods: Emergency staff physicians (MDs), registered nurses (RNs) and respiratory therapists (RTs) participated in ISS sessions in the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Adult and paediatric scenarios were designed to be high-acuity, low-occurrence resuscitation cases. Simulations were 10 min in duration. A written survey was administered to participants immediately postsimulation, collecting demographic data and perceived LSTs. Survey data was collated and LSTs were grouped using a previously described framework. Results: Thirteen simulation sessions were completed from July to November 2018, with 59 participants (12 MDs, 41 RNs, 6 RTs). Twenty-four unique LSTs were identified from survey data. RNs identified a median of 2 (IQR 1, 2.5) LSTs, significantly more than RTs (0.5 (IQR 0, 1.25), p=0.04). Within respective professions, MDs and RTs most commonly identified equipment issues, and RNs most commonly identified medication issues. Participants with ≤10 years of experience identified a median of 2 (IQR 1, 3) LSTs versus 1 (IQR 1, 2) LST in those with >10 years of experience (p=0.06). Adult and paediatric patient scenarios were associated with the identification of a median of 4 (IQR 3.0, 4.0) and 5 LSTs (IQR 3.5, 6.5), respectively (p=0.15). Conclusions: Inclusion of a multidisciplinary team is important during ISS in order to gain a breadth of perspectives for the identification of LSTs. In our study, participants with ≤10 years of experience and simulations with paediatric scenarios were associated with a higher number of identified LSTs; however, the difference was not statistically significant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.