Long-term effects of an e-learning course on patient safety: A controlled longitudinal study with medical students

Rainer Gaupp; Julia Dinius; Ivana Drazic; Mirjam Körner

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210947

Abstract

Background

To improve patient safety, educational interventions on all system levels, including medical school are necessary. Sound theoretical knowledge on elements influencing patient safety (such as error management or team work) is the basis for behavioral changes of health care professionals.

Methods

A controlled, quasi-experimental study with repeated measures was deployed. The intervention group participated in a mandatory e-learning course on patient safety (ELPAS) between October 2016 and December 2016. The control group did not receive any didactic session on patient safety. In both groups we measured technical knowledge and attitudes towards patient safety before the intervention (T0), directly after the intervention (T1) and one year after the intervention (T2). Participants were 309 third-year medical students in the intervention group and 154 first- and second-year medical students in the control group.

Results

Technical knowledge in the intervention group (but not the control group) improved significantly after the intervention and remained high after one year (F(2, 84) = 13.506, p < .001, η² = .243). Students of the intervention group felt better prepared for safe patient practice, even one year after the intervention F(2, 85) = 6.743, p < .002, η² = .137). There was no sustainable significant effect on attitudes towards patient safety.

Conclusion

This study shows, that eLearning interventions can produce significant long-term effects on patient safety knowledge, however, the study did not show long-term effects on attitudes towards patient safety. Our study implies two potential developments for future research: e-learning might be used in combination with face-to-face sessions, or more intensive (in terms of frequency and duration) e-learning sessions may be needed to achieve lasting changes in attitude.

Citation: Gaupp R, Dinius J, Drazic I, Körner M (2019) Long-term effects of an e-learning course on patient safety: A controlled longitudinal study with medical students. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0210947. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210947

Editor: Mojtaba Vaismoradi, Nord University, NORWAY

Received: August 31, 2018; Accepted: January 6, 2019; Published: January 18, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Gaupp et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The article processing charge was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the University of Freiburg in the funding programme Open Access Publishing. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Patient safety is a major concern of health-care systems worldwide.[1–6] Strategies to improve patient safety are complex and combine measures on all system levels of the health-care system,[7] e.g. infrastructure,[8] technology,[9] management,[10] processes,[11] and education[12]. Although the problem with patient safety has been known in the community for decades,[13] and countless initiatives brought remarkable success for patient safety, numerous tasks to improve patient safety remain undone, or were not successful, leaving further space for improvement.[14] One of the reasons, why it is so difficult to improve patient safety, is vulnerable, complex systems where individuals tend to blame each other and deny the existence of systemic errors.[15] The denial of systemic errors is fostered by a poor understanding of safety on one hand, [14] and by person based error management on the other hand.[16] When approaching the problem of patient safety from an educational perspective, it is therefore paramount to include sound theoretical background on error management and system theories in both undergraduate and postgraduate health care curricula, as all major patient safety curricula suggest.[17–20] Additionally to these cognitive goals, patient safety education must also focus on affective learning goals and trigger reflection on individual and team behavior to overcome blaming cultures.[21]

To address the needs for patient safety education, we developed and implemented an e-learning course on patient safety (ELPAS) at Freiburg University in 2014. This course uses a case-based interactive approach and focuses on team work,[22] error management,[23] situational awareness,[24] and crisis resource management.[25] Although e-learning courses are rarely used to approach patient safety[26], its advantages compared to traditional learning methods are promising: Constraints of time and location are irrelevant in e-learning courses, which allows higher flexibility for the learner and increases the availability of learning material.[27] Web 2.0 functionalities (including shared documents, discussion boards, wikis, chat rooms etc.) enable and foster collaborative learning and both learner-learner and learner-tutor interactions by providing technical possibilities to create content collaboratively and communicate and share content via the internet.[28, 29] Through these functionalities, the e-learning is not only a container for content, but serves as a digital hub to access and transform knowledge, discuss experiences and work on problems collaboratively with peers.

As e-learning is rarely used to teach patient safety aspects [26], we evaluate the implementation of the e-learning on patient safety (ELPAS) to determine its educational benefits and understand if e-learning can indeed be a valuable part of patient safety training. Early evaluation studies suggest that ELPAS is accepted by learners as a valuable instrument to learn about patient safety and identified variables that support the learning experience through the e-learning course.[30] A further study suggested that ELPAS has the potential to generate positive learning outcomes with regard to patient safety knowledge, metacognitive strategies and attitudes.[31] However, this earlier study was not powered to test the ELPAS group against a control group. Based on the promising results of this earlier study, we developed a more rigorous study design to test a set of hypotheses longitudinally and against a control group. Based on the theory of attitude-relevant knowledge,[32] we assume that e-learning programs can trigger changes in attitude, if the e-learning enables learners to gain specific knowledge and helps them to perceive this knowledge as attitude-relevant. Against this assumption we drafted five hypotheses. Two of them focus on attitude-relevant knowledge (i, ii), whereas the remaining three hypotheses focus on attitudes known to support patient safety (iii, iv, v):

Learning hypothesis: Technical knowledge (specific knowledge on patient safety) increases in the intervention group after the intervention, but not in the control group.
Preparation hypothesis: The intervention group feels better prepared for safe patient practice after the intervention, whereas no such effect is detectable in the control group.
Monitoring hypothesis: Attitudes toward situation monitoring increase in the intervention group after the intervention, but not in the control group.
Disclosure hypothesis: Error disclosure confidence increases in the intervention group after the intervention, but not in the control group.
Empowerment hypothesis: Perceived importance of patient empowerment increases in the intervention group after the intervention, but not in the control group.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

The study was planned and conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki on ethical principles for research involving human subjects. The protocol was approved by the local ethics committee (reg. no. 59/16). Participants were informed on the aim of the questionnaire and that data would be analyzed anonymously. Access to the questionnaires was technically impossible without opting-in to participate at the study. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Study design

A controlled, quasi-experimental study with repeated measures was deployed. The intervention group (IG) participated in a mandatory e-learning course on patient safety (ELPAS) between October 2016 and December 2016. The control group (CG) did not receive any didactic session on patient safety but followed the regular medical curriculum. As the intervention is a mandatory part of the curriculum in year 3, we allocated 3^rd year students to the intervention group and 1^st and 2^nd year students to the control group. In both groups we measured technical knowledge and attitudes towards patient safety before the intervention (T0), directly after the intervention (T1) and one year after the intervention (T2). We selected a 12-month interval to measure long-term effects to ensure that both, the intervention and control group, did not receive any other didactic session on patient safety which would potentially bias the study.

Sample

We pre-calculated the required sample size for the study using G*Power (vers. 3.1 for Mac OSx). Assuming small effect sizes (f = 0.2 [33]), setting α at 0.05 and targeting a statistical power of 0.8 [34], the required calculated sample size was 244. Expecting large drop outs due to the voluntary character of the study and the long-term approach, we included 689 students in the study. Of those, 309 third-year medical students in the intervention group and 154 first- and second-year medical students in the control group completed the questionnaire at T0. Complete records for T0, T1 and T2 measurements are available for 54 participants in the intervention group, and 36 participants in the control group. Fig 1 shows a flowchart of the survey population sampling.

Download:

Fig 1. Summary of method and sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210947.g001

Table 1 shows the sociodemographic data of the sample: 72.2% (n = 39) of the participants in the IG, and 69.4% (n = 25) in the CG were female (χ²(1, n = 64) = 0.081, p = .776). Participants of the CG were younger (72.3% (n = 26) ≤ 24 years old) than those in the IG (66.7% (n = 36) ≤ 24 years old) (χ²(5, n = 90) = 22.106, p < .001). 40% (n = 17) of the CG, respectively 31.5% (n = 14) of the IG had previous professional experience in health care (e.g. in nursing or midwifery) (χ²(4, n = 58) = 1.28, p = .864).

Download:

Table 1. Sociodemographic data as a percentage of the sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210947.t001

Intervention

ELPAS is an online course which focuses on team work,[22] error management,[23] situational awareness,[24] and crisis resource management.[25] The content of the course is delivered in 3 major modules. German is used as the main language, although some material is delivered in English. The modules are linked to each other, but can be completed in random order. The didactic concept of the course follows a case-based interactive approach: Students work in virtual groups of 6 persons and fulfil a number of assignments including multiple choice tests, video analysis and case studies. Despite the collaborative nature of the didactic approach, students can freely choose their study time and place, as the e-learning allows both synchronous and asynchronous collaboration. [35] To complete the course, students need a total study time of 6 to 8 hours. Students have three months to complete the course. The eLearning is hosted on the online learning management system (ILIAS, Vers. 5.1, general public licence) of the university and can be accessed by any member of the university by using a course-specific password.

Measures

Our primary outcome was technical knowledge on patient safety. Secondary outcomes were general attitudes towards patient safety and specific attitudes towards situation monitoring.

German Version of the Attitudes Towards Patient Safety Questionnaire (GAPSQ)

The German Version of the Attitudes Towards Patient Safety Questionnaire (GAPSQ[36]) is a 14-item questionnaire to measure six dimensions of attitudes towards patient safety, using 7-point Likert scales (1 = do not agree at all; 7 = fully agree). Kiesewetter and colleagues[36] validated the questionnaire on a sample of 85 students. They found the average internal consistency reliability was Cronbachs alpha of .74. In our study, the average reliability of all GAPSQ subscales was comparable (α = .77). Means were calculated for each dimension separately; a total score is not intended for the GAPSQ. To test our hypotheses, we focused on three subscales: Received patient safety training measures how well students feel prepared for safe patient practice, error reporting confidence measures how confident students feel to report their own errors or errors they observed from other persons and patient involvement in reducing error measures how students rate the importance of patient empowerment for patient safety.

TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Attitudes Questionnaire (T-TAQ)

The TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Attitudes Questionnaire (T-TAQ[37]) is a reliable and valid tool and measures individual attitudes towards major aspects of teamwork.[38] In this study we applied only the situation monitoring scale of the T-TAQ. Situation monitoring is the process of permanently monitoring behaviors and actions to assess all elements of the situation environment and its context. The scale contains six items, rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = do not agree; 5 = fully agree). The situation monitoring scale of the T-TAQ showed satisfactory reliability (α = .83) and discriminant validity in earlier research.[38] For our study, we translated the items to German and re-translated it for consistency checks. In our data, mean reliability (T0-T2) was acceptable (α = .69).

Technical knowledge.

Technical knowledge was tested by a set of four single-choice questions, each presenting a short case, e.g. “You are an emergency physician and respond to an unconscious patient. Two paramedics assist you.”. The set of questions was developed by the authors, content validity was confirmed by an expert group. The item difficulty of the four questions ranged between .43 and .87 which is in line with the recommended item difficulty for medical examinations. [39, 40] The learner had to choose from one of five options, each suggesting a different type of more or less safe behavior. We used comparable, but not identical question sets for T0, T1, and T2. The resulting score of technical knowledge had a range of 0% (no correct answer) to 100% (4 correct answers).

Data collection

Participants for both the intervention and control group were recruited via e-mail. Online questionnaires were distributed via the learning management system (ILIAS, Vers. 5.1, general public license). Anonymous student identity numbers were used to create paired datasets, containing T0 –T2 data. Pretest data was collected in October 2016 (T0), posttest data in January 2017 (T1) and follow-up data in January 2018 (T2).

Data analysis

SPSS Vers. 24 (SPSS Statistics for MacOS, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) was used for statistical analysis. Significance level was set at alpha = .05, η² was calculated to report effect sizes. Chi square tests were conducted to compare sociodemographic characteristics. Analysis of covariances (ANCOVA) with repeated measurements was conducted to test the hypotheses, post-hoc simple contrasts were calculated to compare effects between the data collection points. In the analysis, we adjusted for differences in previous professional experience in healthcare, therefore we controlled for the variable professional experience.

Prior to data analysis, cases with missing values >30% were excluded.[41] For the remaining data, Little's Missing Completely At Random (MCAR) test was non-significant (χ²(9561) = 9667.58, p = .220), indicating that the data was indeed missing at random. Thus, missing values were imputed using the expectation maximization algorithm.[42]

Results

A total of 90 participants submitted data for all three measurements from October 2016 to January 2018. Both groups (IG; CG) were comparable with regard to professional experience and gender distribution. Participants of the control group were slightly younger due to their novice status (see Table 1). In the pretest data, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for all outcome measures, except for the GAPSQ scale received patient safety education (t₍₈₈₎ = 2.085, p<0.001, d = 0.46), where the control group felt slightly better prepared for safe patient actions than their peers in the intervention group (4.74; SD = .88 [CG] vs. 4.32; SD = .96 [IG]).

Results of the knowledge tests support the learning hypothesis (i): the intervention had a statistically significant effect on technical knowledge levels (F(2, 84) = 13.506, p < .001, η² = .243). Technical knowledge increased significantly in the intervention group after the intervention, whereas changes in the technical knowledge of the control group remained statistically non-significant. Analysis of the follow-up measurements shows, that the knowledge differences between both groups remain significant, even after 12 months.

Along with the increase in technical knowledge, there was also a statistically significant effect of the e-learning on perceived preparedness for safe patient practice (F(2, 85) = 6.743, p < .002, η² = .137), supporting the preparation hypothesis (ii). Participants of the e-learning reported an increase of perceived preparedness after the intervention and in the follow-up data, whereas the students who did not receive the e-learning felt less prepared for safe patient actions, the longer they were enrolled in the study.

Although there was a minor, yet statistically significant, effect on situation monitoring directly after the intervention (F(1, 198) = 9.608, p < .002, η² = .046), this effect did not remain significant in the follow-up data (F(2, 85) = 1.492, p = .231), so the monitoring hypothesis (iii) is rejected. We also reject the disclosure hypothesis (iv), as the e-learning did not show any effect on error disclosing, neither in the follow-up data (T2), nor directly after the intervention(T2) (F(2, 85) = 0.160, p = .852). The data show a positive trend towards perceived higher importance of patient empowerment in the intervention group. However, this trend is statistically not significant (F(2, 81) = 2.64, p = .078) and the empowerment hypothesis is rejected (v). Fig 2 and Table 2 summarize the results:

Download:

Fig 2. Results of the repeated measures design for T0, T1 and T2.

Graphs show results of technical knowledge, the GAPSQ scales preparedness for safe patient practice, error disclosure and patient empowerment and the TTAQ scale situation monitoring.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210947.g002

Download:

Table 2. Univariate statistics for variables in analysis. IG = intervention group; CG = control group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210947.t002

Discussion

The results of this study show that ELPAS is both an effective and sustainable learning intervention. Students in the experimental group significantly improved their technical knowledge on patient safety from 33% correct answers in the pre-test to 73% in the post-test. Learning retention rates were very high, results in the follow-up test one year after the intervention were still at 72%. These results extend the existing evidence on e-learning in medical education. Although several studies proved that e-learning does help to increase knowledge, especially if enhanced interaction is embedded,[27, 43–46] very few studies have been published which demonstrate long-term effects of e-learning on knowledge particularly in the field of patient safety.[47, 48] Such long-term effects may build a stable basis for further learning. The acquired knowledge provides valuable connection points for subsequent learning contents on patient safety within the curriculum. Knowledge helps students to interpret experiences made in clinical practice and create refined knowledge by abstract conceptualization[49]. The result of the objective knowledge test is supported by subjective ratings of students on the subscales of the GAPSQ. Students participating at ELPAS feel better prepared for safe patient practice than participants in the control group. These results suggest, that students acknowledge the e-learning course and recognize that it may affect their professional practice. Patey and colleagues reported similar effects, however, they used a face-to-face didactic session on patient safety rather than an e-learning. [50]

Our data show a peak of preparedness directly after the intervention, dropping to slightly reduced values after one year. As the preparedness did not rise in the 12 months after the intervention, it is likely, that students did not receive any training in year 4 of their studies, which had direct links to patient safety.

Whereas this study supports both the learning- and the preparation hypothesis, acquisition of knowledge alone did not result in stable changes of attitudes towards patient safety. Patient empowerment[51] is not an explicit topic of the e-learning intervention, but better understanding of systems thinking and the introduction into multi-perspective analysis of errors[52] may lead to the insight, that patients are part of the system, and are, as such, relevant for patient safety. Although there is a considerable, yet statistically not significant, positive trend in the patient empowerment dimension of the GAPSQ, the empowerment hypothesis is rejected. When interpreting the data in the context of experiential learning[49], it is noticeable, that patient empowerment becomes more important in the experimental group even one year after ELPAS. Within this year students gain their first extended clinical experiences and may realize the impact patient empowerment may have on patient safety.

Contrary to the attitudes on patient empowerment, attitudes towards situation monitoring and error disclosure did not develop over time. In T1, the situation monitoring hypothesis was still supported by the data, however after one year, the effect was not evident anymore. Results of error reporting confidence led to a rejection of the disclosure hypothesis as well. Although ELPAS intensively discusses the topic, students did not change their attitude towards error disclosure. When comparing the study groups, it is obvious, that levels of error disclosure confidence are lower in the intervention group. Kiesewetter[36] showed that the levels of error disclosure confidence drops when students get more field experience in the hospital. This is also true for our intervention group; structures of hospitals may have posed a barrier for error disclosure[53].

Although we hypothesized that attitudes toward specific dimensions of patient safety may change through significant knowledge acquisition, non significant results are still not unexpected, as permanent changes in attitudes require strong stimuli.[54] Stimuli created by the e-learning may not be strong or frequent enough to permanently change attitudes, especially as the situational context (i.e. clinical experience) may not be given due to the mainly theoretical education in year 3 of the curriculum. Brown and colleagues[55] recently showed that attitudes towards quality improvement can be positively influenced by education, even in first year medical students without much clinical experience. However, their intervention comprised of facilitated workshops in small groups, rather than of e-learning. Other studies focusing on attitudes reported similar effects. Although knowledge improved, studies failed to show changes in attitudes.[56] Our study compares changes in attitudes within 15 months, i.e. a rather long time for young medical students who experience major developments in their personal and academic life within this time. Several earlier studies describe negative changes of attitudes (i.e. empathy[57], patient orientation[58] or ethical aspects[59]) in medical students, as they progress through medical school. This may impair the expected changes of patient safety related attitudes through the e-learning intervention. Although there is more recent work neglecting a negative change of attitudes during medical education[60] the fact that students gain professional experience the longer they are enrolled in medical school, often leads to less idealistic, but more realistic views on health-care.[61]

Limitations

The outcome criteria of this study are mainly self-reported attitudes and as such subjective. Only the level of technical knowledge forms objective data. The quasi-experimental design with repeated measurements supported the interpretation of causal relationships, however, within this repeated measures design, participant drop out led to a small group remaining at T2. Based on the sample size calculation, the remaining group at T2 might not be large enough to identify small positive effects. Repeated measures with identical or similar questionnaires may also trigger learning effects, which may explain a certain knowledge acquisition even in the control group. Selection bias for both the intervention and control group are likely to have occurred, as participation was voluntary. Generalizability of the results may be limited, as the sample included only students of the medical faculty of one university. Although we used tested instruments and the reliability of the scales was acceptable, data suggest that ceiling effects cannot be ruled out.

Conclusion

Our study shows that the e-learning achieves long-term effects on knowledge when compared to the control group. However, positive effects on attitudes, which were identified in the initial evaluation study of ELPAS, [31] could not be replicated with this more rigorous longitudinal study. In conclusion, our study implies two potential developments for future research: e-learning might be used in combination with face-to-face sessions, or more intensive (in terms of frequency and duration) e-learning sessions may be needed to achieve lasting changes in attitude.

To overcome weaknesses in the development of attitudes towards patient safety, we are currently working on an extended version of ELPAS, which shall develop patient safety competences longitudinally by short e-learning modules embedded in the medical curriculum.[62] This approach will link ELPAS much closer to medical practice and will be enhanced with simulated patient encounters and may create stimuli strong enough to lead to significant changes in attitudes.

Supporting information

S1 File. Raw data.

This file contains the study raw data, except for any potentially personally identifying information.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210947.s001

(SAV)

Acknowledgments

We thank Colleen Livingstone for critical reading the manuscript and language editing.

References

1. Schrappe M. Patient safety: a topic of the future, the future of the topic. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2015;58(1):4–9. Epub 2014/12/10. pmid:25487852.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. MAM. Patientensicherheit wird zum nationalen Gesundheitsziel. Ärzte Zeitung. 2014.
3. Clancy CM. Ten years after To Err is Human. American journal of medical quality: the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality. 2009;24(6):525–8. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC19826077. pmid:19826077
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Tokioter Erklärung zur Patientensicherheit [Internet]. 2018; 14.0418 [cited 01.06.18]. Available from: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/3_Downloads/P/Patientensicherheit/PSS_2018/Tokioter-Deklaration_deutsch.pdf
5. Rice HE, Lou-Meda R, Saxton AT, Johnston BE, Ramirez CC, Mendez S, et al. Building a safety culture in global health: lessons from Guatemala. BMJ Global Health. 2018;3(2). pmid:29607099
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Sheikh A, Dhingra-Kumar N, Kelley E, Kieny MP, Donaldson LJ. The third global patient safety challenge: tackling medication-related harm. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95(8):546-A. Epub 2017/08/15. pmid:28804162; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5537758.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Allegranzi B, Björn B, Burnand B, Chopard P, Conen D, Pfaff H, et al. Improving the quality and safety of healthcare in Switzerland recommendations and proposals for the federal strategy. Second report of the scientific advisory board. Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft., 2017.
8. Schrappe M. APS-Weißbuch Patientensicherheit: Sicherheit in der Gesundheitsversorgung: neu denken, gezielt verbessern. Berlin: MWV Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2018.
9. Feldman SS, Buchalter S, Hayes LW. Health Information Technology in Healthcare Quality and Patient Safety: Literature Review. JMIR Med Inform. 2018;6(2):e10264. Epub 2018/06/06. pmid:29866642; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6006013.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Parand A, Dopson S, Renz A, Vincent C. The role of hospital managers in quality and patient safety: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2014;4(9):e005055-e. pmid:25192876
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Tvedt C, Sjetne IS, Helgeland J, Bukholm G. A cross-sectional study to identify organisational processes associated with nurse-reported quality and patient safety. BMJ Open. 2012;2(6). Epub 2012/12/25. pmid:23263021; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3533052.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Samuriwo R, Patel Y, Webb K, Bullock A. Medical education and patient safety: time to look beyond gendered attributes? Med Educ. 2018;52(7):685–7. Epub 2018/06/08. pmid:29879304.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2000. xxi, 287 p. p.
14. Illingworth J. Continuous improvement of patient safety. The case for change in the NHS. The Health Foundation, 2015.
15. Reason JT, Carthey J, de Leval MR. Diagnosing "vulnerable system syndrome": an essential prerequisite to effective risk management. Qual Health Care. 2001;10 Suppl 2:ii21–5. Epub 2001/11/09. pmid:11700375; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1765747.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Reason JT. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot, Hants, England; Brookfield, Vt., USA: Ashgate; 2013.
17. MFT. Nationaler Kompetenzbasierter Lernzielkatalog. Berlin: MFT, 2015.
18. WHO. Patient safety curriculum guide. Geneva2011.
19. Patientensicherheit A. Wege zur Patientensicherheit—Lernzielkatalog für Kompetenzen in der Patientensicherheit. Berlin: Aktionsbündnis Patientensicherheit, 2014.
20. Myung SJ, Shin J-S, Kim JH, Roh H, Kim Y, Kim J, et al. The patient safety curriculum for undergraduate medical students as a first step toward improving patient safety. J Surg Educ. 2012;69(5):659–64. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC22910166. pmid:22910166
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. Managing the unexpected: sustained performance in a complex world. Third edition. ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley; 2015. xi, 209 pages p.
22. Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS. Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research. 2005;36(5):555–99.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Reason J. Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
24. Endsley MR. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1995;37(1):32–64.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Miller RD. Miller's anesthesia. Eighth edition. ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Saunders; 2015. 2 volumes (xxx, 3270, I–122 pages) p.
26. Gordon M, Darbyshire D, Baker P. Non-technical skills training to enhance patient safety: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2012;46(11):1042–54. Epub 2012/10/20. pmid:23078681.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. George PP, Papachristou N, Belisario JM, Wang W, Wark PA, Cotic Z, et al. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. J Glob Health. 2014;4(1):010406. Epub 2014/07/01. pmid:24976965; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4073252.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Biasutti M. A comparative analysis of forums and wikis as tools for online collaborative learning. Computers & Education. 2017;111:158–71.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Hsu Y-C, Ching Y-H, Grabowski BL. Web 2.0 Applications and Practices for Learning Through Collaboration. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology2014. p. 747–58.
30. Gaupp R, Fabry G, Körner M. Self-regulated learning and critical reflection in an e-learning on patient safety for third-year medical students. IntJMedEd. 2018;9:189–94. pmid:30007950
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Gaupp R, Korner M, Fabry G. Effects of a case-based interactive e-learning course on knowledge and attitudes about patient safety: a quasi-experimental study with third-year medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:172. Epub 2016/07/13. pmid:27400872; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4940690.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Fabrigar LR, Petty RE, Smith SM, Crites SL. Understanding knowledge effects on attitude-behavior consistency: The role of relevance, complexity, and amount of knowledge. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;90(4):556–77. pmid:16649855
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. ed: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. XXI, 567 S. p.
34. Bühner M, Ziegler M. Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler. München: Pearson; 2009.
35. Yates S, Thorn M, Han A, Deacon M. Building an Online Copyright Module: A Case Study in Collaborative Learning. Collaboration and the Academic Library2018. p. 97–104.
36. Kiesewetter J, Kager M, Lux R, Zwissler B, Fischer MR, Dietz I. German undergraduate medical students' attitudes and needs regarding medical errors and patient safety—a national survey in Germany. Med Teach. 2014;36(6):505–10. Epub 2014/03/07. pmid:24597660.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. King HB, Battles J, Baker DP, Alonso A, Salas E, Webster J, et al. TeamSTEPPS(): Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, editors. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol 3: Performance and Tools). Advances in Patient Safety. Rockville (MD)2008.
38. Baker DP, Amodeo AM, Krokos KJ, Slonim A, Herrera H. Assessing teamwork attitudes in healthcare: development of the TeamSTEPPS teamwork attitudes questionnaire. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(6):e49. Epub 2010/08/13. pmid:20702444.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Möltner A, Schellberg D, Jünger J. Basic quantitative analyses of medical examinations. GMS Journal for Medical Education. 2006;23(3):Doc53.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Young M, Cummings BA, St-Onge C. Ensuring the quality of multiple-choice exams administered to small cohorts: A cautionary tale. Perspect Med Educ. 2017;6(1):21–8. Epub 2017/01/05. pmid:28050882; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5285282.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Lüdtke O, Robitzsch A., Trautwein U., & Köller O. Umgang mit fehlenden Werten in der psychologischen Forschung: Probleme und Lösungen. Psychologische Rundschau. 2007;58(2):103–17.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Lou W, Wan L, Abner EL, Fardo DW, Dodge HH, Kryscio RJ. Multi-state models and missing covariate data: Expectation-Maximization algorithm for likelihood estimation. Biostat Epidemiol. 2017;1(1):20–35. Epub 2017/01/01. pmid:29600291; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5869000.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Voutilainen A, Saaranen T, Sormunen M. Conventional vs. e-learning in nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;50:97–103. pmid:28038371
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Labeau SO, Rello J, Dimopoulos G, Lipman J, Sarikaya A, Ozturk C, et al. The Value of E-Learning for the Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37(9):1052–9. Epub 2016/05/14. pmid:27174463.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Alam F, Boet S, Piquette D, Lai A, Perkes CP, LeBlanc VR. E-learning optimization: the relative and combined effects of mental practice and modeling on enhanced podcast-based learning-a randomized controlled trial. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016;21(4):789–802. Epub 2016/02/06. pmid:26846221.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Kulier R, Gulmezoglu AM, Zamora J, Plana MN, Carroli G, Cecatti JG, et al. Effectiveness of a clinically integrated e-learning course in evidence-based medicine for reproductive health training: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;308(21):2218–25. Epub 2012/12/06. pmid:23212499.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Hagen J, Albrechtsen E, Ole Johnsen S. The long‐term effects of information security e‐learning on organizational learning. Information Management & Computer Security. 2011;19(3):140–54.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Van Lancker A, Baldewijns K, Verhaeghe R, Robays H, Buyle F, Colman R, et al. The effectiveness of an e-learning course on medication calculation in nursing students: a clustered quasi-experimental study. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(9):2054–64. pmid:27060466
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. 1 ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1984.
50. Patey R, Flin R, Cuthbertson BH, MacDonald L, Mearns K, Cleland J, et al. Patient safety: helping medical students understand error in healthcare. Quality & safety in health care. 2007;16(4):256–9. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC17693671. pmid:17693671
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Roter DL, Wolff J, Wu A, Hannawa AF. Patient and family empowerment as agents of ambulatory care safety and quality. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2017;26(6):508–12. pmid:27558306
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Taylor-Adams S, Vincent C. Systems analysis of clinical incidents. The London protocol. London: Imperial College London, 2005.
53. Schwappach D, Richard A. Speak up-related climate and its association with healthcare workers’ speaking up and withholding voice behaviours: a cross-sectional survey in Switzerland. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2018. pmid:29572300
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Bohner G, Dickel N. Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62(1):391–417. pmid:20809791
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
55. Brown A, Nidumolu A, Stanhope A, Koh J, Greenway M, Grierson L. Can first-year medical students acquire quality improvement knowledge prior to substantial clinical exposure? A mixed-methods evaluation of a pre-clerkship curriculum that uses education as the context for learning. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2018;27(7):576–82. pmid:29555723
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Dankbaar MEW, Richters O, Kalkman CJ, Prins G, ten Cate OTJ, van Merrienboer JJG, et al. Comparative effectiveness of a serious game and an e-module to support patient safety knowledge and awareness. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1). pmid:28148296
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Chen DCR, Kirshenbaum DS, Yan J, Kirshenbaum E, Aseltine RH. Characterizing changes in student empathy throughout medical school. Med Teach. 2012;34(4):305–11. pmid:22455699
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Wilcox MV, Orlando MS, Rand CS, Record J, Christmas C, Ziegelstein RC, et al. Medical students’ perceptions of the patient-centredness of the learning environment. Perspectives on Medical Education. 2016;6(1):44–50. pmid:27987074
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Benbassat J. Undesirable features of the medical learning environment: a narrative review of the literature. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2012;18(3):527–36. pmid:22760724
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Ferreira-Valente A, Monteiro JS, Barbosa RM, Salgueira A, Costa P, Costa MJ. Clarifying changes in student empathy throughout medical school: a scoping review. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2016;22(5):1293–313. pmid:27465064
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
61. Krupat E, Pelletier SR. The Development of Medical Student Competence: Tracking Its Trajectory Over Time. Medical Science Educator. 2015;26(1):61–7.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Kiesewetter J, Drossard S, Gaupp R, Baschnegger H, Kiesewetter I, Hoffmann S. How could the topic patient safety be embedded in the curriculum? A recommendation by the Committee for Patient Safety and Error Management of the GMA. GMS J Med Educ. 2018;35(1):Doc15. Epub 2018/03/03. pmid:29497700; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5827198.
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Schrappe M. Patient safety: a topic of the future, the future of the topic. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2015;58(1):4–9. Epub 2014/12/10. pmid:25487852.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. MAM. Patientensicherheit wird zum nationalen Gesundheitsziel. Ärzte Zeitung. 2014.

[ref3] 3. Clancy CM. Ten years after To Err is Human. American journal of medical quality: the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality. 2009;24(6):525–8. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC19826077. pmid:19826077
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[7] View Article

[8] PubMed/NCBI

[9] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Tokioter Erklärung zur Patientensicherheit [Internet]. 2018; 14.0418 [cited 01.06.18]. Available from: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/3_Downloads/P/Patientensicherheit/PSS_2018/Tokioter-Deklaration_deutsch.pdf

[ref5] 5. Rice HE, Lou-Meda R, Saxton AT, Johnston BE, Ramirez CC, Mendez S, et al. Building a safety culture in global health: lessons from Guatemala. BMJ Global Health. 2018;3(2). pmid:29607099
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[12] View Article

[13] PubMed/NCBI

[14] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Sheikh A, Dhingra-Kumar N, Kelley E, Kieny MP, Donaldson LJ. The third global patient safety challenge: tackling medication-related harm. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95(8):546-A. Epub 2017/08/15. pmid:28804162; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5537758.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[16] View Article

[17] PubMed/NCBI

[18] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Allegranzi B, Björn B, Burnand B, Chopard P, Conen D, Pfaff H, et al. Improving the quality and safety of healthcare in Switzerland recommendations and proposals for the federal strategy. Second report of the scientific advisory board. Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft., 2017.

[ref8] 8. Schrappe M. APS-Weißbuch Patientensicherheit: Sicherheit in der Gesundheitsversorgung: neu denken, gezielt verbessern. Berlin: MWV Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2018.

[ref9] 9. Feldman SS, Buchalter S, Hayes LW. Health Information Technology in Healthcare Quality and Patient Safety: Literature Review. JMIR Med Inform. 2018;6(2):e10264. Epub 2018/06/06. pmid:29866642; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6006013.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Parand A, Dopson S, Renz A, Vincent C. The role of hospital managers in quality and patient safety: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2014;4(9):e005055-e. pmid:25192876
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Tvedt C, Sjetne IS, Helgeland J, Bukholm G. A cross-sectional study to identify organisational processes associated with nurse-reported quality and patient safety. BMJ Open. 2012;2(6). Epub 2012/12/25. pmid:23263021; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3533052.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Samuriwo R, Patel Y, Webb K, Bullock A. Medical education and patient safety: time to look beyond gendered attributes? Med Educ. 2018;52(7):685–7. Epub 2018/06/08. pmid:29879304.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2000. xxi, 287 p. p.

[ref14] 14. Illingworth J. Continuous improvement of patient safety. The case for change in the NHS. The Health Foundation, 2015.

[ref15] 15. Reason JT, Carthey J, de Leval MR. Diagnosing "vulnerable system syndrome": an essential prerequisite to effective risk management. Qual Health Care. 2001;10 Suppl 2:ii21–5. Epub 2001/11/09. pmid:11700375; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1765747.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[40] View Article

[41] PubMed/NCBI

[42] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Reason JT. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot, Hants, England; Brookfield, Vt., USA: Ashgate; 2013.

[ref17] 17. MFT. Nationaler Kompetenzbasierter Lernzielkatalog. Berlin: MFT, 2015.

[ref18] 18. WHO. Patient safety curriculum guide. Geneva2011.

[ref19] 19. Patientensicherheit A. Wege zur Patientensicherheit—Lernzielkatalog für Kompetenzen in der Patientensicherheit. Berlin: Aktionsbündnis Patientensicherheit, 2014.

[ref20] 20. Myung SJ, Shin J-S, Kim JH, Roh H, Kim Y, Kim J, et al. The patient safety curriculum for undergraduate medical students as a first step toward improving patient safety. J Surg Educ. 2012;69(5):659–64. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC22910166. pmid:22910166
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[48] View Article

[49] PubMed/NCBI

[50] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. Managing the unexpected: sustained performance in a complex world. Third edition. ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley; 2015. xi, 209 pages p.

[ref22] 22. Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS. Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research. 2005;36(5):555–99.
View Article
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Reason J. Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.

[ref24] 24. Endsley MR. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1995;37(1):32–64.
View Article
Google Scholar

[57] View Article

[58] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Miller RD. Miller's anesthesia. Eighth edition. ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Saunders; 2015. 2 volumes (xxx, 3270, I–122 pages) p.

[ref26] 26. Gordon M, Darbyshire D, Baker P. Non-technical skills training to enhance patient safety: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2012;46(11):1042–54. Epub 2012/10/20. pmid:23078681.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[61] View Article

[62] PubMed/NCBI

[63] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. George PP, Papachristou N, Belisario JM, Wang W, Wark PA, Cotic Z, et al. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. J Glob Health. 2014;4(1):010406. Epub 2014/07/01. pmid:24976965; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4073252.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] PubMed/NCBI

[67] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Biasutti M. A comparative analysis of forums and wikis as tools for online collaborative learning. Computers & Education. 2017;111:158–71.
View Article
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Hsu Y-C, Ching Y-H, Grabowski BL. Web 2.0 Applications and Practices for Learning Through Collaboration. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology2014. p. 747–58.

[ref30] 30. Gaupp R, Fabry G, Körner M. Self-regulated learning and critical reflection in an e-learning on patient safety for third-year medical students. IntJMedEd. 2018;9:189–94. pmid:30007950
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Gaupp R, Korner M, Fabry G. Effects of a case-based interactive e-learning course on knowledge and attitudes about patient safety: a quasi-experimental study with third-year medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:172. Epub 2016/07/13. pmid:27400872; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4940690.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Fabrigar LR, Petty RE, Smith SM, Crites SL. Understanding knowledge effects on attitude-behavior consistency: The role of relevance, complexity, and amount of knowledge. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;90(4):556–77. pmid:16649855
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. ed: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. XXI, 567 S. p.

[ref34] 34. Bühner M, Ziegler M. Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler. München: Pearson; 2009.

[ref35] 35. Yates S, Thorn M, Han A, Deacon M. Building an Online Copyright Module: A Case Study in Collaborative Learning. Collaboration and the Academic Library2018. p. 97–104.

[ref36] 36. Kiesewetter J, Kager M, Lux R, Zwissler B, Fischer MR, Dietz I. German undergraduate medical students' attitudes and needs regarding medical errors and patient safety—a national survey in Germany. Med Teach. 2014;36(6):505–10. Epub 2014/03/07. pmid:24597660.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] PubMed/NCBI

[90] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. King HB, Battles J, Baker DP, Alonso A, Salas E, Webster J, et al. TeamSTEPPS(): Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, editors. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol 3: Performance and Tools). Advances in Patient Safety. Rockville (MD)2008.

[ref38] 38. Baker DP, Amodeo AM, Krokos KJ, Slonim A, Herrera H. Assessing teamwork attitudes in healthcare: development of the TeamSTEPPS teamwork attitudes questionnaire. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(6):e49. Epub 2010/08/13. pmid:20702444.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Möltner A, Schellberg D, Jünger J. Basic quantitative analyses of medical examinations. GMS Journal for Medical Education. 2006;23(3):Doc53.
View Article
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Young M, Cummings BA, St-Onge C. Ensuring the quality of multiple-choice exams administered to small cohorts: A cautionary tale. Perspect Med Educ. 2017;6(1):21–8. Epub 2017/01/05. pmid:28050882; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5285282.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] PubMed/NCBI

[102] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Lüdtke O, Robitzsch A., Trautwein U., & Köller O. Umgang mit fehlenden Werten in der psychologischen Forschung: Probleme und Lösungen. Psychologische Rundschau. 2007;58(2):103–17.
View Article
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Lou W, Wan L, Abner EL, Fardo DW, Dodge HH, Kryscio RJ. Multi-state models and missing covariate data: Expectation-Maximization algorithm for likelihood estimation. Biostat Epidemiol. 2017;1(1):20–35. Epub 2017/01/01. pmid:29600291; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5869000.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] PubMed/NCBI

[109] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Voutilainen A, Saaranen T, Sormunen M. Conventional vs. e-learning in nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;50:97–103. pmid:28038371
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] PubMed/NCBI

[113] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Labeau SO, Rello J, Dimopoulos G, Lipman J, Sarikaya A, Ozturk C, et al. The Value of E-Learning for the Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37(9):1052–9. Epub 2016/05/14. pmid:27174463.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[115] View Article

[116] PubMed/NCBI

[117] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Alam F, Boet S, Piquette D, Lai A, Perkes CP, LeBlanc VR. E-learning optimization: the relative and combined effects of mental practice and modeling on enhanced podcast-based learning-a randomized controlled trial. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016;21(4):789–802. Epub 2016/02/06. pmid:26846221.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] PubMed/NCBI

[121] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Kulier R, Gulmezoglu AM, Zamora J, Plana MN, Carroli G, Cecatti JG, et al. Effectiveness of a clinically integrated e-learning course in evidence-based medicine for reproductive health training: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;308(21):2218–25. Epub 2012/12/06. pmid:23212499.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] PubMed/NCBI

[125] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Hagen J, Albrechtsen E, Ole Johnsen S. The long‐term effects of information security e‐learning on organizational learning. Information Management & Computer Security. 2011;19(3):140–54.
View Article
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Van Lancker A, Baldewijns K, Verhaeghe R, Robays H, Buyle F, Colman R, et al. The effectiveness of an e-learning course on medication calculation in nursing students: a clustered quasi-experimental study. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(9):2054–64. pmid:27060466
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] PubMed/NCBI

[132] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. 1 ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1984.

[ref50] 50. Patey R, Flin R, Cuthbertson BH, MacDonald L, Mearns K, Cleland J, et al. Patient safety: helping medical students understand error in healthcare. Quality & safety in health care. 2007;16(4):256–9. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC17693671. pmid:17693671
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] PubMed/NCBI

[137] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Roter DL, Wolff J, Wu A, Hannawa AF. Patient and family empowerment as agents of ambulatory care safety and quality. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2017;26(6):508–12. pmid:27558306
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] PubMed/NCBI

[141] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Taylor-Adams S, Vincent C. Systems analysis of clinical incidents. The London protocol. London: Imperial College London, 2005.

[ref53] 53. Schwappach D, Richard A. Speak up-related climate and its association with healthcare workers’ speaking up and withholding voice behaviours: a cross-sectional survey in Switzerland. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2018. pmid:29572300
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[144] View Article

[145] PubMed/NCBI

[146] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Bohner G, Dickel N. Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62(1):391–417. pmid:20809791
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] PubMed/NCBI

[150] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Brown A, Nidumolu A, Stanhope A, Koh J, Greenway M, Grierson L. Can first-year medical students acquire quality improvement knowledge prior to substantial clinical exposure? A mixed-methods evaluation of a pre-clerkship curriculum that uses education as the context for learning. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2018;27(7):576–82. pmid:29555723
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] PubMed/NCBI

[154] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Dankbaar MEW, Richters O, Kalkman CJ, Prins G, ten Cate OTJ, van Merrienboer JJG, et al. Comparative effectiveness of a serious game and an e-module to support patient safety knowledge and awareness. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1). pmid:28148296
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[156] View Article

[157] PubMed/NCBI

[158] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Chen DCR, Kirshenbaum DS, Yan J, Kirshenbaum E, Aseltine RH. Characterizing changes in student empathy throughout medical school. Med Teach. 2012;34(4):305–11. pmid:22455699
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[160] View Article

[161] PubMed/NCBI

[162] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Wilcox MV, Orlando MS, Rand CS, Record J, Christmas C, Ziegelstein RC, et al. Medical students’ perceptions of the patient-centredness of the learning environment. Perspectives on Medical Education. 2016;6(1):44–50. pmid:27987074
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] PubMed/NCBI

[166] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Benbassat J. Undesirable features of the medical learning environment: a narrative review of the literature. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2012;18(3):527–36. pmid:22760724
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] PubMed/NCBI

[170] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Ferreira-Valente A, Monteiro JS, Barbosa RM, Salgueira A, Costa P, Costa MJ. Clarifying changes in student empathy throughout medical school: a scoping review. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2016;22(5):1293–313. pmid:27465064
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] PubMed/NCBI

[174] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Krupat E, Pelletier SR. The Development of Medical Student Competence: Tracking Its Trajectory Over Time. Medical Science Educator. 2015;26(1):61–7.
View Article
Google Scholar

[176] View Article

[177] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Kiesewetter J, Drossard S, Gaupp R, Baschnegger H, Kiesewetter I, Hoffmann S. How could the topic patient safety be embedded in the curriculum? A recommendation by the Committee for Patient Safety and Error Management of the GMA. GMS J Med Educ. 2018;35(1):Doc15. Epub 2018/03/03. pmid:29497700; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5827198.
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[179] View Article

[180] PubMed/NCBI

[181] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Study design

Sample

Intervention

Measures

German Version of the Attitudes Towards Patient Safety Questionnaire (GAPSQ)

TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Attitudes Questionnaire (T-TAQ)

Technical knowledge.

Data collection

Data analysis

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 File. Raw data.

Acknowledgments

References