Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36357884›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2022

Where do nursing students make mistakes when calculating drug doses? A retrospective study.

Laia Wennberg-Capellades, Pilar Fuster-Linares, Encarnación Rodríguez-Higueras, Alberto Gallart Fernández-Puebla, Mireia Llaurado-Serra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Laia Wennberg-CapelladesDepartment of Nursing, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Josep Trueta s/n, 08195, Barcelona, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain. lwennberg@uic.es.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6811-1343
Pilar Fuster-LinaresDepartment of Nursing, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Josep Trueta s/n, 08195, Barcelona, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7548-7528
Encarnación Rodríguez-HiguerasDepartment of Nursing, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Josep Trueta s/n, 08195, Barcelona, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1292-8570
Alberto Gallart Fernández-PueblaDepartment of Nursing, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Josep Trueta s/n, 08195, Barcelona, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9633-2151
Mireia Llaurado-SerraDepartment of Nursing, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Josep Trueta s/n, 08195, Barcelona, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5123-0581

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch internationally shows that nursing students find dosage calculation difficult. Identifying the specific aspects of dose calculation procedures that are most commonly associated with errors would enable teaching to be targeted where it is most needed, thus improving students' calculation skills. The aim of this study was to analyze where specifically nursing students make mistakes when calculating drug doses.

methodRetrospective analysis of written examination papers including dosage calculation exercises from years 1, 2, and 3 of a nursing degree program. Exercises were analyzed for errors in relation to 23 agreed categories reflecting different kinds of calculation or steps in the calculation process. We conducted a descriptive and bivariate analysis of results, examining the relationship between the presence of errors and the proportion of correct and incorrect final answers.

resultsA total of 285 exam papers including 1034 calculation exercises were reviewed. After excluding those that had been left blank, a total of 863 exercises were analyzed in detail. A correct answer was given in 455 exercises (52.7%), although this varied enormously depending on the type of exercise: 89.2% of basic dose calculations were correct, compared with just 2.9% of those involving consideration of maximum concentration. The most common errors were related to unit conversion, more complex concepts such as maximum concentration and minimum dilution, or failure to contextualize the answer to the clinical case. Other frequent errors involved not extracting the key information from the question, not including the units when giving their answer, and not understanding the question. In general, fewer errors in basic dose calculations were made by students at later stages of the degree program.

conclusionsStudents struggle with more complex dose calculations. The main errors detected were related to understanding the task and the key concepts involved, as well as not following the correct steps when solving the problem.

Indexed as

Dosage calculationMedication errorsNurse educationNursing studentsPatient safety

Identifiers

PMID36357884
PMCPMC9648043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.