Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
E-pub ahead of print

The concept of errors in medical education: a scoping review

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. What divides us and what unites us?

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftLederForskningpeer review

  2. Peer review is not a lottery: AHSE's Fast Track

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Social ties between team members affect patient satisfaction: a data-driven approach to handling complex network analyses

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. What we learn in time of pestilence

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Standard Setting in Simulation-Based Training of Surgical Procedures: A Systematic Review

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Structural individualism or collaborative mindsets: Next steps for peer learning

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Using machine learning to identify quality-of-care predictors for emergency caesarean sections: a retrospective cohort study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Simulation-Based Ultrasound Training in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

The purpose of this scoping review was to explore how errors are conceptualized in medical education contexts by examining different error perspectives and practices. This review used a scoping methodology with a systematic search strategy to identify relevant studies, written in English, and published before January 2021. Four medical education journals (Medical Education, Advances in Health Science Education, Medical Teacher, and Academic Medicine) and four clinical journals (Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Annals of Surgery, and British Medical Journal) were purposively selected. Data extraction was charted according to a data collection form. Of 1505 screened studies, 79 studies were included. Three overarching perspectives were identified: 'understanding errors') (n = 31), 'avoiding errors' (n = 25), 'learning from errors' (n = 23). Studies that aimed at'understanding errors' used qualitative methods (19/31, 61.3%) and took place in the clinical setting (19/31, 61.3%), whereas studies that aimed at 'avoiding errors' and 'learning from errors' used quantitative methods ('avoiding errors': 20/25, 80%, and 'learning from errors': 16/23, 69.6%, p = 0.007) and took place in pre-clinical (14/25, 56%) and simulated settings (10/23, 43.5%), respectively (p < 0.001). The three perspectives differed significantly in terms of inclusion of educational theory: 'Understanding errors' studies 16.1% (5/31),'avoiding errors' studies 48% (12/25), and 'learning from errors' studies 73.9% (17/23), p < 0.001. Errors in medical education and clinical practice are defined differently, which makes comparisons difficult. A uniform understanding is not necessarily a goal but improving transparency and clarity of how errors are currently conceptualized may improve our understanding of when, why, and how to use and learn from errors in the future.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice
ISSN1382-4996
DOI
StatusE-pub ahead of print - 21 feb. 2022

Bibliografisk note

© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

ID: 74976343