Tue, Sep 17, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 17, Issue 54 (2024)
JMED 2024, 17(54): 78-88 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: NASR: 983086
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Gazerani A, Masoumian Hosseini M, Amini Z, Masoumian Hosseini S T, Manzari Z S. An experimental study of the effect of "error board reporting" as an instrument for improving student proficiency in the surgical setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. JMED 2024; 17 (54) :78-88
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2009-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2009-en.html
Akram Gazerani 
, Mohsen Masoumian Hosseini , Zakiyeh Amini * , Seyedeh Toktam Masoumian Hosseini , Zahra Sadat Manzari
, Mohsen Masoumian Hosseini , Zakiyeh Amini * , Seyedeh Toktam Masoumian Hosseini , Zahra Sadat Manzari
Department of Operating Room and Anesthesiology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran
Abstract: (1044 Views)
Background & Objective: Error Board Reporting (EBR) is a comprehensive approach for quickly reporting and analyzing errors that occur during surgical operations. This study assesses the influence of EBR on student error frequency and proficiency during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the goal of enhancing clinical teaching.
Material & Methods: This research used an experimental design that included a pretest and posttest to investigate the impact of the intervention on two distinct groups: the intervention group receiving EBR training and the control group undergoing conventional training. The participants were randomized to either EBR or conventional training. Both groups had pretests and posttests, with logbook results included as part of the final assessment process. Furthermore, a satisfaction survey was conducted after the study to gauge participant satisfaction levels. The data gathered from this study underwent rigorous statistical analysis employing various tests, including the Shapiro-Wilk test for assessing normality, the independent t-test for comparing across groups, the paired t-test for comparing within-groups, and multiple linear regression analysis.
Results: The study found no statistically significant differences in age, gender, semester, or age between the intervention and control groups. Furthermore, these characteristics did not have a significant influence on the final scores. However, posttest results and scores from post-practicum logbooks demonstrated significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). EBR training significantly improved surgical procedural mastery skills (p = 0.002) and self-efficacy (p = 0.001). A paired t-test demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding their mean pretest and posttest scores (p < 0.001). EBR decreased student errors 86% of the time, effectively promoted a positive spirit, improved critical thinking, and strengthened critical thinking skills (76%).
Conclusion: Incorporating EBR into educational practices can minimize errors and enhance performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing patients' quality of life.
Material & Methods: This research used an experimental design that included a pretest and posttest to investigate the impact of the intervention on two distinct groups: the intervention group receiving EBR training and the control group undergoing conventional training. The participants were randomized to either EBR or conventional training. Both groups had pretests and posttests, with logbook results included as part of the final assessment process. Furthermore, a satisfaction survey was conducted after the study to gauge participant satisfaction levels. The data gathered from this study underwent rigorous statistical analysis employing various tests, including the Shapiro-Wilk test for assessing normality, the independent t-test for comparing across groups, the paired t-test for comparing within-groups, and multiple linear regression analysis.
Results: The study found no statistically significant differences in age, gender, semester, or age between the intervention and control groups. Furthermore, these characteristics did not have a significant influence on the final scores. However, posttest results and scores from post-practicum logbooks demonstrated significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). EBR training significantly improved surgical procedural mastery skills (p = 0.002) and self-efficacy (p = 0.001). A paired t-test demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding their mean pretest and posttest scores (p < 0.001). EBR decreased student errors 86% of the time, effectively promoted a positive spirit, improved critical thinking, and strengthened critical thinking skills (76%).
Conclusion: Incorporating EBR into educational practices can minimize errors and enhance performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing patients' quality of life.
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2023/07/31 | Accepted: 2024/01/10 | Published: 2024/05/10
Received: 2023/07/31 | Accepted: 2024/01/10 | Published: 2024/05/10
References
1. Bahrami Babaheidary T, Sadati L, Golchini E, Mahmudi E. Assessment of Clinical Education in the Alborz University of Medical Sciences from Surgical Technology and Anesthesiology Students’ Point of View. Alborz University Medical Journal. 2012;1(3):143-50. [DOI]
2. Hwang GJ, Chang SC, Chen PY, Chen XY. Effects of integrating an active learning-promoting mechanism into location-based real-world learning environments on students’ learning performances and behaviors. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2018;66:451-74. [DOI]
3. Bosma E, Veen E, Roukema J. Incidence, nature and impact of error in surgery. Journal of British Surgery. 2011;98(11):1654-9. [DOI]
4. Huang C, Azizi P, Vazirzadeh M, et al. Non-coding RNAs/DNMT3B axis in human cancers: from pathogenesis to clinical significance. Journal of Translational Medicine. 2023;21(1):621. [DOI]
5. Penn CE. Integrating just culture into nursing student error policy. Journal of Nursing Education. 2014;53(9):S107-S9. [DOI]
6. Clancy CM. New patient safety organizations lower roadblocks to medical error reporting. American Journal of Medical Quality. 2008;23(4):318-21. [DOI]
7. Aljabari S, Kadhim Z. Common barriers to reporting medical errors. The Scientific World Journal. 2021;2021. [DOI]
8. Lamb R. Open disclosure: the only approach to medical error. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2004. p. 3-5. [DOI]
9. Diel MM, Kristina TN, Nurmalia D. Intervensi Untuk Meningkatkan Self Efficacy Perawat: Literature Review. Jurnal Surya Muda. 2022;4(2):181-95. [DOI]
10. Winslow S, DeGuzman P, Kulbok P, Jackson S. Nurses' self-efficacy and academic degree advancement. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development. 2014;30(3):110-6; quiz E1-2. [DOI]
11. Ooi PB, Wan Jaafar WM, Crosling G. Malaysian school counselor’s self-efficacy: the key roles of supervisor support for training, mastery experience, and access to training. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:749225. [DOI]
12. Lee GB, Chiu AM. Assessment and feedback methods in competency-based medical education. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. 2022;128(3):256-62. [DOI]
13. Baxter S, Gray C. The application of student‐centred learning approaches to clinical education. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. 2001;36(S1):396-400. [DOI]
14. Mackenzie KM. Who should teach clinical skills to nursing students? British Journal of Nursing. 2009;18(7):395-8. [DOI]
15. Asadi L, Dafei M, Mojahed S, Safinejad H. Clinical error management training for midwifery students in Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd. Journal of Education and Health Promotion. 2021;10(1). [DOI]
16. Ashokka B, Ong SY, Tay KH, Loh NH, Gee CF, Samarasekera DD. Coordinated responses of academic medical centres to pandemics: sustaining medical education during COVID-19. Medical Teacher. 2020;42(7):762-71. [DOI]
17. Lee TH. A broader concept of medical errors. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002;347(24):1965-7. [DOI]
18. Ünal A, Intepeler ŞS. Scientific View of the Global Literature on Medical Error Reporting and Reporting Systems From 1977 to 2021: A Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Patient Safety. 2022;18(7):e1102-e8. [DOI]
19. Leyshon S, Bach TL, Turk E, et al. How regulators assess and accredit safety and quality in surgical services. In: Sanchez JA, Barach P, Johnson JK, et al., editors. Surgical Patient Care: Improving Safety, Quality and Value. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 755-83. [DOI]
20. Stalmeijer R, McNaughton N, Mook W. Using focus groups in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 91. Medical Teacher. 2014;36:1-17. [DOI]
21. Dzara K, Heller A, Kesselheim J. The COVID-19 online learning transition and the plus/delta debriefing model. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2021;41(2):91-3. [DOI]
22. Litman R. How to prevent medication errors in the operating room? Take away the human factor. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2018;120(3):438-40. [DOI]
23. Helo S, Moulton CA. Complications: acknowledging, managing, and coping with human error. Translational Andrology and Urology. 2017;6(4):773-82. [DOI]
24. Rodziewicz TL, Houseman B, Hipskind JE. Medical error reduction and prevention. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, 2022.
25. Kim J, You M, Shon C. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on unmet healthcare needs in Seoul, South Korea: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(8):e045845. [DOI]
26. Oyebode F. Clinical errors and medical negligence. Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre. 2013;22(4):323-33. [DOI]
27. Chateau A, Candas P. Tracking students’ autonomization through emotion traces in logbooks. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. 2015;5(3):395-408. [DOI]
28. Liu J. Correlating self-efficacy with self-assessment in an undergraduate interpreting classroom: How accurate can students be? Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria De Didáctica De Las Lenguas Extranjeras . 2021(36):9-25. [DOI]
29. Mohammad Nejad I, Hojjati H, Sharifniya SH, Ehsani SR. Evaluation of medication error in nursing students in four educational hospitals in Tehran. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine. 2010;3(1):60-9
30. Safarpour H, Tofighi M, Malekyan L, Bazyar J, Varasteh S, Anvary R. Patient safety attitudes, skills, knowledge and barriers related to reporting medical errors by nursing students. International Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2017;8(01):1-11. [DOI]
31. Woo MWJ, Avery MJ. Nurses' experiences in voluntary error reporting: An integrative literature review. International Journal of Nursing Sciences . 2021;8(4):453-69. [DOI]
32. Sahebalzamani M, Moghadam FA, Geravandi S, Mohammadi MJ, Naghipour M, Yari AR. Evaluation of refusing the medication errors report by nurses of golestan educational hospital after the healthcare reform from 2014 to 2015. Health Scope. 2017;6(4):e61906. [DOI]
33. Khalili Z, Shamsizadeh M, Fallahinia GH, Tohidi S, Ali-Mohammadi N, Tapak L. The types and causes of medication error and barriers in reporting it in internship nursing students in Hamadan nursing midwifery faculty. Pajouhan Scientific Journal. 2019;17(3):16-25. [DOI]
34. Marjaneh Mardani AS. Barriers to reporting nursing job errors from nurses’ viewpoint. Journal of Guilan University of Medical Sciences. 2009;19(62)
35. Azarabad Sh ZSS, Nori B, Valiei S. Frequency and causes of nursing errors and barriers to reporting in operating room students. Research in Medical Education. 2018;10(2):18-27. [DOI]
36. Romi S, Roache J. Excluding students from classroom: Teacher techniques that promote student responsibility. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2012;28(6):870-8. [DOI]
37. Aubin D, King S. Developing a culture of safety: Exploring students’ perceptions of errors in an interprofessional setting. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2015;29(6):646-8. [DOI]
38. Vera M, Kattan E, Cerda T, et al. Implementation of distance-based simulation training programs for healthcare professionals: breaking barriers during COVID-19 pandemic. Simulation in Healthcare. 2021;16(6):401-6. [DOI]
39. Hall AK, Nousiainen MT, Campisi P, et al. Training disrupted: Practical tips for supporting competency-based medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical Teacher. 2020;42(7):756-61. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
