ArticleBMC nursing2025
Patient safety in the 'Room of Horrors' simulation: a multi-method study of student, novice, and experienced nurses.
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.
- Building Skills in Infection Prevention Through Simulation: Insights from Nursing Students in Brazil and Peru.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient safety is a critical concern in healthcare, with unsafe care causing significant harm. Nurses play a vital role in promoting safety and must be equipped with the skills to identify and manage safety hazards. The Room of Horrors (ROH) simulation was developed to enhance these skills by presenting learners with a simulated patient scenario containing safety hazards. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the simulation by (1) comparing hazard recognition performance across different groups; (2) assessing changes in self-perceived patient safety competency and confidence; (3) exploring participants' simulation experiences; and (4) examining perceived benefits for clinical practice.
methodsA multi-method design was employed, incorporating a quasi-experimental three-group pre-test, post-test, and two-week follow-up structure, and a qualitative analysis of participants' experiences and perceptions. The study involved participants from one nursing college and five hospitals in Korea. The sample (N = 90) comprised three groups: nursing students (n = 30), novice nurses (n = 30), and experienced nurses (n = 30). Participants underwent a 20-minute pre-briefing, 10-minute simulation, 10-minute self-reflection, and 40-minute debriefing session. Data were collected through structured surveys on patient safety competency, confidence, and open-ended questions about participants' experiences and perceptions. Two-week follow-up surveys evaluated perceived clinical relevance. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis; qualitative data were analyzed through content analysis.
resultsExperienced nurses identified significantly more hazards, including those requiring two-step logical reasoning, than nursing students and novice nurses. Both novice and experienced nurses showed improvements in safety competency and confidence. Participant feedback was overwhelmingly positive, particularly highlighting the value of debriefing. The two-week follow-up indicated that almost all participants had applied the knowledge gained through the simulation in their clinical practice.
conclusionsThe ROH simulation enhances self-reported patient safety competency and confidence, especially among experienced nurses, supporting its integration into nursing education and continuing professional development. Findings also suggest the importance of tailoring scenario complexity and debriefing strategies to learner readiness and highlight the potential value of integrating ROH simulations into experience-sensitive safety training programs. Further research is warranted to investigate its long-term impact on clinical practice.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.