Medication‑Related Errors Among Nurses by Unit Adaptation Levels: A Bayesian Network–Based Exploratory Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Medical errors occur more frequently in health care than in other industries due to challenges in patient safety education for nurses and students. To address this, it is important to identify the factors and structures underlying clinical errors and apply these insights to educational programs. Medication-related errors are highly preventable with appropriate interventions, highlighting the importance of data-driven safety education. Previous research suggests that unit adaptation, rather than clinical experience alone, plays a critical role in error occurrence. Focusing on "adaptive performance," an underexplored concept in nursing, can help identify new educational strategies and interventions. Objective: This hypothesis-generating study used Bayesian network modeling to examine how unit experience-and, secondarily, total nursing experience-relates to the structure of medication-related errors, with implications for data-driven patient safety education and nursing student instruction. Methods: This mixed methods study conducted a qualitative root cause analysis of medication error reports to identify causal factors. Bayesian network modeling, an artificial intelligence-based approach, was used to visualize error-generation flows and compare models based on years of experience within the current unit. Data were obtained from 2023 medication-related error reports submitted by nurses to the Japan Council for Quality Health Care. Results: Among 119 medication-related incidents, the largest proportion occurred in internal medicine departments (n=47 cases, 39.5%), followed by surgical departments (n=27 cases, 22.7%), the intensive care unit (n=10 cases, 8.4%), and the emergency room (n=7 cases, 5.9%). Most incidents occurred in patient rooms or wards (n=97 cases, 81.5%). Root cause analysis identified 10 types of medication-related events and 23 contributing factors. Cases were categorized into low-, moderate-, and high-adaptation groups based on years of experience in the current unit. In the low-adaptation group (n=33), 69.7% of nurses had ≥5 years of total nursing experience, indicating that the group did not consist solely of novice nurses. The average entropy of incident events across the Bayesian network models ranged from 0.37 to 0.78, suggesting moderate to relatively high uncertainty in the inferred error structures. The moderate- and high-adaptation models exhibited fewer complex error networks, with weaker chains of unsafe conditions or actions than the low-adaptation model. The extensive clinical experience did not always prevent errors; rather, it was often linked to lapses in verification behavior. Conclusions: Unit adaptation appears to play a critical role in shaping error pathways. Nurses with lower unit adaptation demonstrated more complex error structures, indicating higher vulnerability to incident chains. In contrast, total years of nursing experience did not uniformly reduce risk and may even relate to lapses in verification behaviors.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".