ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring medical error taxonomies and human factors in simulation-based healthcare education.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study aims to provide an updated overview of medical error taxonomies by building on a robust review conducted in 2011. It seeks to identify the key characteristics of the most suitable taxonomy for use in high-fidelity simulation-based postgraduate courses in Critical Care. While many taxonomies are available, none seem to be explicitly designed for the unique context of healthcare simulation-based education, in which errors are regarded as essential learning opportunities. Rather than creating a new classification system, this study proposes integrating existing taxonomies to enhance their applicability in simulation training. Through data from surveys of participants and tutors in postgraduate simulation-based courses, this study provides an exploratory analysis of whether a generic or domain-specific taxonomy is more suitable for healthcare education. While a generic classification may cover a broad spectrum of errors, a domain-specific approach could be more relatable and practical for healthcare professionals in a given domain, potentially improving error-reporting rates. Seven strong links were identified in the reviewed classification systems. These correlations allowed the authors to propose various simulation training strategies to address the errors identified in both the classification systems. This approach focuses on error management and fostering a safety culture, aiming to reduce communication-related errors by introducing the principles of Crisis Resource Management, effective communication methods, and overall teamwork improvement. The gathered data contributes to a better understanding and training of the most prevalent medical errors, with significant correlations found between different medical error taxonomies, suggesting that addressing one can positively impact others. The study highlights the importance of simulation-based education in healthcare for error management and analysis.
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.