ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Opioid Room of Horrors: a simulation approach to strengthen drug administration safety.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesMedication administration errors (MAEs) are frequent and preventable. While the five rights (5R) rule and the double-check are standard practices for safe drug administration, incidents still occur. MAEs involving high-risk drugs such as opioids are a major concern, especially in older patients. To address this, a practical, error-driven training was developed through an opioid Room of Horrors (RoH) to reinforce the 5R rule and the double-check procedure and map risks within the opioid medication-use process, thereby improving the safety of opioid administration. The secondary objective was to evaluate participant satisfaction with the training.
methodThe opioid RoH integrates four errors and four hazards hidden in the opioid medication-use process. Participants, working in pairs, were asked to prepare and administer an opioid to a fictitious patient. Two assessors recorded the number of errors detected and hazards avoided. During the debriefing, assessors reviewed and explained these items to the pair of trainees combined with a refresh on the 5R rule and the double-check process. Detection and avoidance rates were analysed using descriptive statistics. Participants assessed the training through a satisfaction questionnaire.
resultsA total of 86 sessions were conducted, involving 172 participants including nurses, nurse assistants and physicians from a geriatric department. Participants detected errors such as wrong patient (60%), expired drugs (63%), incorrect strength or galenic form (55%) and documented allergy (55%), while most hazards were avoided, except for the correct device, which was used in only 65% of cases. Double-check performance was inefficient mainly focusing on the dose check. Satisfaction was high (9.2/10), and 73% of participants reported a knowledge gain.
conclusionsThe opioid RoH is an effective training to refresh and emphasise the rigorous application of the 5R rules and the double-check procedure to reduce MAEs. Additionally, this simulation showed persistent gaps such as patient identification and double-check failures, highlighting the need to strengthen safety practices through continuous training and institutional-level system improvements in medication administration safety.
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.