Evaluating a patient safety course for undergraduate nursing students: A quasi-experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although it has long been recognised that prelicensure education is essential for preparing nurses with the necessary patient safety competencies, patient safety education tends to be inadequately addressed in nursing curricula in South Korea and elsewhere. Aim This study examined the effectiveness of a recently developed 8-week standalone course on patient safety by comparing the patient safety competencies, knowledge, and attitudes of students who attended and did not attend the course, after controlling for baseline levels of each outcome measure. Methods The study used a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design with a non-equivalent comparison group, with 40 undergraduate nursing students in the intervention group, and 67 in the comparison group. Outcomes included the total score and six subscale scores measured with the Health Professional Education in Patients Safety Survey, and the Patient Safety Attitude scale developed by the WHO patient safety program. Additionally, there was an objective measure of patient safety knowledge using 15 multiple-choice questions. Findings After adjusting for baseline scores, Time 2 scores on all outcome measures were significantly higher in the intervention group than the comparison group, indicating the intervention's effectiveness. We found that the largest effect of the course accrued to patient safety knowledge. Overall, the students' assessment of the course was highly positive. Discussion Our patient safety course could be a model for teaching patient safety in undergraduate nursing curriculum. Conclusion This study shows the potential for a standalone patient safety course to increase undergraduate nursing students' patient safety competencies, knowledge, and attitudes towards patient safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".