ArticleJournal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners2023
A room of errors simulation to improve pharmacy operators' knowledge of cytotoxic drug production.
Article in Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Opioid Room of Horrors: a simulation approach to strengthen drug administration safety.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Patient safety in the 'Room of Horrors' simulation: a multi-method study of student, novice, and experienced nurses.BMC nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe used an educational healthcare simulation tool called room of errors (ROE) to raise pharmacy operators' awareness of potential errors in a chemotherapy production process and assessed its impact on their knowledge and satisfaction.
methodsTwenty-five errors (compiled from internal procedures, literature and our hospital's reported incidents) were categorised as static (
resultsThe 14 participants detected 70.4% ± 11.4% of errors. Least-detected errors were "using non-disinfected vials" (42.9%) and "touching syringe plunger" (0%). Critical errors (expired leftovers or glucose instead of sodium chloride) were detected at 57.1%. Knowledge improved from 60.3% to 94.1% (p < 0.001) and certainty from 75.3% to 98.8% (p < 0.001). Participants appreciated this non-judgmental, informative, and original training (satisfaction 95.7%). Some pointed out difficulties settling into the game quickly and visualising static and dynamic errors simultaneously.
conclusionThis ROE simulation improved operators' knowledge and certainty. Longer-term testing should be done to measure knowledge retention over time.
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.