Study of Errors among Nursing Students

Abstract

The study of errors in the health system today is a topic of considerable interest aimed at reducing errors through analysis of the phenomenon and the conclusions reached. Errors that occur frequently among health professionals have also been observed among nursing students. True, in most cases they are actually “near errors,” but these could be a future indicator of therapeutic reality and the effect of nurses' work environment on their personal performance. There are two different approaches to such errors: (a) The EPP (error prone person) approach lays full responsibility at the door of the individual involved in the error, whether a student, nurse, doctor, or pharmacist. According to this approach, handling consists purely in identifying and penalizing the guilty party. (b) The EPE (error prone environment) approach emphasizes the environment as a primary contributory factor to errors. The environment as an abstract concept includes components and processes of interpersonal communications, work relations, human engineering, workload, pressures, technical apparatus, and new technologies. The objective of the present study was to examine the role played by factors in and components of personal performance as compared to elements and features of the environment. The study was based on both of the aforementioned approaches, which, when combined, enable a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of errors among the student population as well as a comparison of factors contributing to human error and to error deriving from the environment. The theoretical basis of the study was a model that combined both approaches: one focusing on the individual and his or her personal performance and the other focusing on the work environment. The findings emphasize the work environment of health professionals as an EPE. However, errors could have been avoided by means of strict adherence to practical procedures. The authors examined error events in the administration of medication by nursing students during 1999–2006 using narrative analysis and the qualitative triangulation method. The findings result in a recommendation to reconsider the mode of approaching errors in educational processes, the handling of errors in the clinical field, and improvement of the safety climate.

Keywords

near error fundamental attribution error risk factors for errors approach to errors

References

Boreham

N. C.

Mawer

G. E.

Foster

R. W.

(2000). Medical students' errors in pharmacotherapeutics. Medical Education, 34, 188.

Carr

L. T.

(1994). The strengths and weakness of quantitative and qualitative research: What method for nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 716–721.

Cooper

M. C.

(1995). Can a zero defects philosophy be applied to drug errors? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 487.

Donchin

Gopher

Olin

Badidi

Biesky

Sprung

C. L.

(1995). A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine, 23, 294.

Dunn

Hansford

(1997). Undergraduate nursing students' perceptions of their clinical learning environment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 1299.

Gibson

(2001). Nurses and medication error: A discursive reading of the literature. Nursing Inquiry, 8, 108.

Golafshani

(2003). Understanding reability and validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 8, 597–607.

Grasha

A. F.

(1999). Psychosocial factors, workload, and risk of medication errors. U.S. Pharmacist, 27, 85.

Ignatavicius

(2001). Critical thinking skills for at-the-bedside success. Nursing Management, 32, 37.

10.

Jones

E. E.

Harris

V. A.

(1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1–24.

11.

Jones

E. E.

Nisbett

R. E.

(1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of the behavior. In Jones

E. E.

Kanouse

D. E.

Kelley

H. H.

Nisbett

R. E.

Valins

Weiner

(Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79–94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning.

12.

Luther

K. M.

Maguire

Mazabob

Sexton

Helmreich

R. L.

Thomas

(2002). Engaging nurses in patient safety. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America, 14, 341.

13.

Massey

(1999). Methodological triangulation, or how to get lost without being found out. In Massey

Walford

(Eds.), Explorations in methodology (pp. 183–197). Stamford, CT: JAI.

14.

Murier

C. E.

(2000). Understanding the nature of errors in nursing: Using a model to analyze critical incident reports of errors, which had resulted in an adverse or potentially adverse event. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(1), 202.

15.

Nagel

(1993). Moral luck. In Statman

(Ed.), Moral luck (pp. 57–71). Albany: State University of New York Press. (Original work published 1979).

16.

Perrow

(1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

17.

Guion

L. I.

(2002). Triangulation: Establishing the validity of qualitative studies. Gainesville: Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FY394.

18.

Raines

D. A.

(2000). Making mistakes: Prevention is key to error-free health care. AWHONN Lifelines, 4(1), 35.

19.

Reason

(2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320, 768.

20.

Schectman

J. M.

Plews-Ogan

M. L.

(2006). Physician perception of hospital safety and barriers to incident reporting. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 32, 337–343.

21.

Smeyers

Verhesschen

(2001). Narrative analysis as philosophical research: Bridging the gap between the empirical and the conceptual International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(1), 71.

22.

Stolberg

S. G.

(1999). Breaking down medicine's culture of silence. New York: Times News Service.

23.

Sherwood

Thomas

Bennet

D. S.

Lewis

(2002). A teamwork model to promote patient safety in critical care. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America, 14, 333.

24.

Taylor-Adams

Vincent

(2005). Systems analysis of clinical incidents: The London protocol. London: Imperial College London. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://www.csru.org.uk/downloads/SACI.pdf.

25.

Vande Voordle

France

(2002). Proactive error prevention in the intensive care unit. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America, 14, 347.

26.

Walker

(1997). Geographies of responsibility. Hastings Center Report, 27(1), 9.

27.

Walker

(2002). Morality in practice: A response to Claudia Card and Lorraine Code. Hypatia, 17(1), 174.

28.

Weeks

K. W.

Lyne

Torrance

(2000). Written drug dosage errors made by students: The threat to clinical effectiveness and the need for a new approach. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 4, 20.

29.

Wheeler

D. W.

Remundos

D. D.

Whittlestone

K. D.

House

T. P.

Menon

D. K.

(2004). Calculation of doses of drugs in solution. Drug Safety, 27, 729.

30.

Williams

(1993). Moral luck. In Statman

(Ed.), Moral luck (pp. 36–56). (Original work published 1981).

31.

Wolf

Z. R.

Hicks

Serembus

J. F.

(2006). Characteristics of medication errors made by students during the administration phase: A descriptive study. Journal of Professional Nursing, 22, 39.