ArticleBMC medical education2025
Nursing master students' experiences of and reflections on patient safety issues - a mixed-methods study using ecological momentary assessment.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient harm is a serious problem within healthcare services. New methods and technologies improve possibilities to capture students' experiences in clinical practice. Investigating nursing master students' experiences may provide important insights about patient safety issues and positive benefits in education. The aim of this study was to explore nursing master students' experiences and reflections on patient safety issues and adverse events during and after clinical practices.
methodsA mixed-methods convergent design was used, employing Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) combining ratings of six patient safety statements (Likert scales, 1 = totally disagree, to 5 = totally agree) with free-text reflections during clinical practice, and interviews after. Analyses of the quantitative data were combined with a thematic analysis of the qualitative data. In total, 16 nursing master students in nurse anaesthesia (n = 9), critical care nursing (n = 5) and operating room nursing (n = 2) participated in EMA during a 14-day period. In total, 105 EMA responses were obtained. All the students were invited to participate in the interviews afterwards, and 10 of them accepted.
resultsThe quantitative data indicated that, overall, the students considered their clinical practice as patient safe. Mean responses to the six statements were: Observed (Mean 2.5), Discussed (4.6), Avoided (2.5), Experienced (2.0), Safe work (4.6), Threatened (1.4). The participants, however, also provided accounts of events jeopardizing patient safety. Analysis of the students' reflections during clinical practice resulted in three themes: 1) Adverse events or near misses, 2) Communication and interactions in the team and 3) Using security procedures. Post-practice interviews indicated that the EMA led to increased awareness of patient safety issues.
conclusionsOverall, few adverse events and near misses were observed. However, our results indicated that such events do occur and thus need to be addressed. The participants reported that engaging in the daily data collection increased their awareness of adverse events, near-misses and things that go well. The EMA method could be useful as a patient safety reflection tool for master nursing students and other healthcare students.
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.