Formation initiale et continue des préparateurs dans une unité de préparation des anticancéreux : revue des outils disponibles

Bonnet, M.; Chalopin, Monique; Oger, C.; Touil., Youcef; Gagaille, Marie-Pauline

doi:10.1016/j.phclin.2021.03.001

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of five different simulation training tools used in pharmaceutical technology, Bonnet et al considered setting up a room of errors to be the most time-consuming. 7 To put this statement into perspective, every potential error that an operator might make in a clean room has been thought of and implemented in several room of errors described in the literature since the first one in 2015. 22 In the absence of a literature review listing all these errors, it is indeed necessary to take the time to select the mistakes most pertinent to one's working environment and to ready a simulated clean room for this kind of session.…”

Section: Development Of the Room Of Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Simulation is increasingly used to complement traditional teaching approaches such as lectures or distributing theoretical materials. 6 – 9 It has become an integral part of medical education at all levels. 10 Simulation techniques are playful pedagogical tools that can be applied in different ways, such as using error-based simulations (clean rooms containing errors and preparation sheets printed with errors) or game-based simulations (escape games, role-playing games and board games).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A room of errors simulation to improve pharmacy operators’ knowledge of cytotoxic drug production

Garnier

Butaye

Bonnabry

et al. 2023

J Oncol Pharm Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction We used an educational healthcare simulation tool called room of errors (ROE) to raise pharmacy operators’ awareness of potential errors in a chemotherapy production process and assessed its impact on their knowledge and satisfaction. Methods Twenty-five errors (compiled from internal procedures, literature and our hospital's reported incidents) were categorised as static ( n = 7, visible by the participant anytime) and dynamic ( n = 18, made by a pseudooperator in front of the participant). Our simulated cytotoxic production unit (CPU) hosted the 1 h-simulation. Two pharmacists (supervisor/pseudo-operator) welcomed the trainee for a 10-min briefing. During the 20-min simulation, participants watched the pseudo-operator's gestures in a simulated chemotherapy production process. Participants called out each error observed (recorded by the supervisor). A 20-min debriefing followed. ROE's impact on knowledge was measured through participants’ answers to a before-and after 18-item questionnaire about CPU's procedures and certainty about answers on a scale (0%–100%). Participants evaluated the training using a satisfaction questionnaire (Likert scale, 1–6). Results The 14 participants detected 70.4% ± 11.4% of errors. Least-detected errors were “using non-disinfected vials” (42.9%) and “touching syringe plunger” (0%). Critical errors (expired leftovers or glucose instead of sodium chloride) were detected at 57.1%. Knowledge improved from 60.3% to 94.1% (p < 0.001) and certainty from 75.3% to 98.8% (p < 0.001). Participants appreciated this non-judgmental, informative, and original training (satisfaction 95.7%). Some pointed out difficulties settling into the game quickly and visualising static and dynamic errors simultaneously. Conclusion This ROE simulation improved operators’ knowledge and certainty. Longer-term testing should be done to measure knowledge retention over time.

show abstract

Section: Development Of the Room Of Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%