ArticleBMC nursing2025
Effectiveness of room-of-error interventions for healthcare providers: a systematic review.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
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.