Home Incorporating the Certified Professional in Patient Safety credential into undergraduate medical curriculum: assessment and lessons learned
Article Open Access

Incorporating the Certified Professional in Patient Safety credential into undergraduate medical curriculum: assessment and lessons learned

  • Lillee Gelinas ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Amany K. Hassan ORCID logo , Janet Lieto ORCID logo and Albert H. Yurvati ORCID logo
Published/Copyright: May 23, 2025
Download Article (PDF)
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
From the journal Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Volume 125 Issue 10

Abstract

Context

Medical error is cited as a leading cause of preventable harm and death. Medical education in the United States must be restructured to enhance the development of skills, behaviors, and attitudes that medical students will need upon graduation, including the crucial ability to manage clinical and scientific information, understanding the basic concepts of human dynamics, patient safety, systems theory, and the development of basic management, communication, and teamwork skills. To accomplish this goal, it will be necessary for medical schools to balance their current, intensive focus on basic and clinical services with patient safety science. Although many examples exist of incorporating patient safety awareness into medical school courses, there are no recognized and accepted models related to incorporating mandatory patient safety education into medical school curricula that provide comprehensive measures of competence. This study evaluates the quantitative and qualitative outcomes of an intensive, mandatory patient safety course implemented during the third year of undergraduate medical education.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to determine if the implementation of an advanced mandatory 2-week patient safety course, leading to the attainment of the Certified Professional in Patient Safety (CPPS™) credential, can yield a measurable impact on medical students’ patient safety knowledge entering into residency.

Methods

Data were gathered from 12 cohorts of students in each of two consecutive third-year classes. Utilizing mixed-methods analyses, this study followed a total of 430 students to measure the change in their knowledge and perceptions before and after taking the course. The study also assessed what factors were associated with first-time passing of the CPPS™ Certification Examination. These factors included grade point average (GPA), positive perceptions about the course, and class year.

Results

There was significant improvement in the knowledge scores of all five patient safety domains. Similarly, there was a significant improvement in the perceived importance of receiving patient safety education in undergraduate medical education, attaining certification, and the value for students when applying for residency positions. Students’ GPA was the only reliable predictor of passing the CPPS™ Certification Examination. Themes from qualitative data analysis reveal student perceptions of the course and certification to be extremely important to understanding the magnitude of the preventable harm problem and highlighting tools to address patient safety issues in the future. Most students reported that the course was essential to preparing for the comprehensive CPPS™ Certification Examination.

Conclusions

Patient safety science subject matter can be successfully integrated into a formal course for third-year medical students, creating competent patient safety–focused providers and change agents of the future. Incorporating CPPS™ Certification into the curriculum provides a tangible, quantitative academic achievement while equipping students with critical knowledge to systematically improve healthcare quality and safety.

Keywords: certification; curriculum; medical education; patient safety; undergraduate medical education; United States

Medical error is cited as a leading cause of preventable harm and death [1]. It is estimated that 400,000 deaths occur annually in the United States due to medical errors, making it a leading cause of death in the nation [2]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conservatively estimates that there are at least 2 million hospital-acquired infections each year and these infections lead to approximately 90,000 deaths [3]. Early data reporting in 2006 indicated that medication errors alone harm 1.5 million people each year, with 400,000 of these occurring in hospitals [4]. Beyond mortality, data on the magnitude of harm caused by medical errors are alarming. One in 10 patients develops an adverse event, such as a healthcare-acquired infection, a preventable adverse drug event, or a fall, during hospitalization [5]. One study found that 69 % of surgeries had a medication error and/or an adverse drug event [6].

More than 7 million patients experience an adverse surgical event annually, and 1 million patients die as a result [7]. More than 12 million patients each year experience a diagnostic error in outpatient care, half of which are estimated to have the potential to cause harm [8]. Additionally, approximately one-third of Medicare beneficiaries in skilled nursing facilities experienced an adverse event, and half of these events were deemed preventable [9]. It is estimated that up to 96 % of “close calls” are not reported in institutions’ reporting systems, thus institutions are missing out on the opportunity to make changes that can result in avoiding future errors [10].

The Lucian Leape Institute, affiliated with the Institute for Health Improvement (IHI), published a landmark report that pointed out the need to impact the above statistics through teaching medical education to undergraduate medical students and graduate physicians [11]. They pointed out that medical education in the United States must be restructured to enhance the development of skills, behaviors, and attitudes that medical students will need as practicing physicians. These include, in addition to the crucial ability to manage clinical and scientific information, an understanding of the basic concepts of human dynamics, patient safety, systems theory, and the development of basic management, communication, and teamwork skills [11]. To accomplish this goal, it will be necessary for medical schools to balance their current, intensive focus on basic and clinical services with patient safety science. In addition, residency training programs will need to emphasize and ensure the application of these new skills, attitudes, and behaviors. The American Medical Association Education Consortium recommends incorporating patient safety as a part of the Health System Science curriculum to support this change [11].

There is no single, recognized, and accepted model for teaching patient safety in the Undergraduate Medical Education (UME) curriculum [12], 13]. However, there are numerous examples of how some medical schools have developed various approaches to incorporate aspects of patient safety science. Although both the Lucian Leape Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO) have provided guidelines for what to teach, medical schools have largely attempted to develop efforts customized to their individual organizations, curriculum structures, and faculty capabilities [11], 14].

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the quantitative and qualitative outcomes of the implementation of a novel third-year patient safety education course, leading to the Certified Professional in Patient Safety (CPPS™) credential. The course was incorporated into the third year of a College of Osteopathic Medicine curriculum. The study also evaluates the changes in knowledge and perceptions of students. The CPPS™ credential provides a unique means to measurably demonstrate proficiency and skills in the field of patient safety. The secondary study objective is to measure factors that may be associated with students’ likelihood of passing the CPPS™ Certification Examination.

Methods

The North Texas Regional Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed the project and deemed it was exempt from approval. The nature of the research did not require informed consent. No funding was received to conduct the study. Participants were not compensated.

Course structure

Following a pilot study [15], a 2-week, intensive, mandatory Patient Safety Course was designed, developed, and implemented into the core curriculum for all third-year Texas College Osteopathic Medicine (TCOM) medical students. The course was divided into nine 4-h synchronous, live online sessions, and nine 4-h asynchronous study sessions, focusing on the five safety domains tested on the CPPS™ Certification Examination: Culture, Leadership, Patient Safety Risks and Solutions, Measuring & Improving Performance, and Systems Thinking and Design/Human Factors Analysis. The Patient Safety Course utilized a flipped classroom model, wherein students completed the IHI CPPS™ Review Course and studied the required print, audio, and related material before attending learning sessions. During class, the instructor facilitated case-based scenarios, workgroup activities, and interactive discussions to promote learning and reinforcement of course concepts. Before the final class, students completed the online CPPS™ Practice Examination offered by the Certification Board for Professionals in Patient Safety (CBPPS™). During the final class, the rationale for correct and incorrect answers was discussed to promote optimal cognitive discernment.

Although the course was designed to prepare students to pass the CPPS™ Certification Examination, course competencies were created to align with the milestones for patient safety and quality improvement set by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) [16]. Students who successfully complete the course anecdotally reported achieving Levels 3 and 4 on the ACGME patient safety milestones during their first year of residency (Appendix A) as compared to the majority of other residents who tended to achieve just Level 1 or 2. Data presented in this study were collected between February 2020 and July 2022, and they include quantitative and qualitative observations from the Class of 2022 and Class of 2023.

The study was rendered exempt from the North Texas Regional IRB review under the provisions of 45 CFR 46.104 (d), category (1) and category (4) (ii).

Assessing perceptions and attitudes

All students were requested to complete a survey to describe their perceptions and attitudes related to course content, course delivery, the importance of the course, and the importance of patient safety certification (Appendix B). The survey was administered twice: during the first class of the course and after sitting for the CPPS™ Certification Examination. The survey utilized five-point Likert scale questions to measure the level of agreement with the statements in the survey. Responses ranged from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 5 = “Strongly Agree.” The survey conducted after the course conclusion also included open-ended questions to provide detailed feedback about their course and examination experience.

Assessing knowledge

All students completed a patient safety knowledge assessment during the first and last sessions of the course. The assessment was in the form of a required quiz in the Canvas Learning Management System that utilized 22 multiple-choice questions similar to the IHI CPPS™ Review Course comprehension checks and practice questions. The quiz assessed the knowledge of students in the patient safety domains: (1) Culture, (2) Leadership, (3) Patient Safety Risks and Solutions, (4) Measuring and Improving Performance, and (5) Systems Thinking and Design/Human Factor Analysis. Because each of these domains was covered by more than one question in the quiz, we calculated the percentage of correct answers per domain and each student’s overall performance. The knowledge content that was tested was only taught in the Patient Safety Course and not in any other TCOM courses.

Study outcomes

Passing the CPPS™ Certification Examination was considered the primary outcome of the Patient Safety Course. In addition, we wanted students to feel confident about applying patient safety concepts during future clinical experiences. We assessed the pass rates between the two study groups: the Class of 2022 and the Class of 2023. We also compared the pass rates between those students who had positive perceptions about the course and certification to those who did not have positive perceptions.

A student was categorized to have a “positive perception” of the item if they agreed or strongly agreed to it. An item was categorized as “not having positive perception” if they chose any of these responses: neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree.

Statistical analysis

The perceptions and attitudes of students were summarized utilizing means and standard deviations (SDs) or medians and interquartile range (IQR) for items measured on a continuous scale. Categorical items were summarized utilizing frequencies and percentages. The McNemar-Bowker test was utilized to compare the pre- and postlevels of agreement with the survey items. To measure change in knowledge over time, the pre- and postmedian percentage of correct answers per patient safety domain were compared utilizing the Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired t test.

A binary logistic regression model was utilized to quantify the association between the primary outcome (passing the CPPS™ Certification Examination) and having positive perceptions about the course while adjusting for differences in grade point average (GPA) and class year. Model goodness-of-fit was evaluated utilizing the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test. All quantitative data analyses were conducted utilizing SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc. 2013. SAS® 9.4 Statements: Reference. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.) utilizing a priori alpha level of 0.05.

Qualitative data analysis of the responses to the open-ended questions in the attitude and perceptions survey was conducted utilizing thematic and content analyses. Template analysis, a subtype of thematic analysis, was utilized to allow flexibility in identifying the codes and themes from the data as they emerged from the iterative process of theme adjustment. Finally, the entire team met to discuss these themes, the initial template, and codes. These were subsequently modified and adjusted three times. MAXQDA 2022 (VERBI Software) was utilized to manage and analyze the data.

Results

Data were gathered from 12 cohorts of students in each of two consecutive third-year classes. A total of 454 students were included in the study: 238 in the Class of 2022 and 216 in the Class of 2023. Utilizing the complete dataset with no missing values, we were able to link all of the pre/post-knowledge and perceptions surveys for 406 students (89.4 %).

Results from the knowledge assessments showed a significant increase in overall knowledge. The median percent correct in the pre-assessment was 55 % (IQR: 45–59 %), which increased to 95 % (IQR: 91–100 %), with a p value <0.0001. Similarly, both study groups had a significant increase in the knowledge scores for all five domains taught in the patient safety course (Table 1).

Table 1:

Pre- and postknowledge scores by domain.



Domain

n=454		 Percent correct answers in each domain p-Valuea
Pre-course assessment

median (IQR)		 Post-course assessment

median (IQR)
Culture 50 % (25–50 %) 100 % (100–100 %) <0.0001
Measuring and improving performance 50 % (0–50 %) 100 % (100–100 %) <0.0001
Patient safety risks and solutions 80 % (60–80 %) 100 % (100–100 %) <0.0001
Systems thinking and design, and human factor analysis 40 % (20–60 %) 100 % (80–100 %) <0.0001
Leadership 67 % (50–83 %) 100 % (100–100 %) <0.0001
Total 55 % (45–59 %) 95 % (91–100 %) <0.0001

  1. aWilcoxon signed-rank test. IQR, interquartile range.

Most students (89 % or higher) had positive perceptions (i.e., agreed or strongly agreed) that learning about each of the five domains is an important part of their medical training. There were no significant differences in the pre- and postresponses in any of these items (Table 2).

Table 2:

Pre- and postcourse assessment comparison of number of students with positive perceptions of safety domains and value of certification.

Domain

n=406		 Positive perceptionsa precourse assessment, n (%) Positive perceptionsa postcourse assessment, n (%) p-Valueb
Culture 383 (94) 378 (93) 0.411
Measuring and improving performance 372 (91.6) 372 (91.6) 1
Patient safety risks and solutions 381 (93.8) 372 (91.6) 0.1495
Systems thinking and design and human factor analysis 362 (89.2) 367 (90.4) 0.5151
Leadership 387 (95.3) 373 (91.9) 0.0164
Patient safety education 217 (53.5) 284 (70.0) < 0.001
Certification in patient safety 183 (45.0) 259 (63.8) < 0.001
Value to residency interviews 210 (51.7) 287 (70.7) < 0.001
Confidence in patient safety concepts 326 (80.3) 337 (83.0) 0.2159

  1. aA student was categorized to have a “positive perception” of the item if they agreed or strongly agreed to it. bMcNemar's Chi-Squared Test.

However, when asked about the importance of the course in the first 3 years of medical school, achieving certification, and the appeal of the certification credential to residency directors, there was a significant increase in the level of agreement after completing the course (Table 2). The positive perceptions were also significantly higher in the Class of 2023 compared to the class of 2022 (Table 3).

Table 3:

Precourse assessment – student cohort comparison: number of students with a positive perception of the course and certification.

Class of 2022 (n=209) Class of 2023 (n=197) p-Valuea
Patient safety education, n (%) 94 (45) 123 (62.4) 0.0004
Certification in patient safety, n (%) 75 (36) 108 (54.8) 0.0001
Value to residency interviews, n (%) 95 (45.5) 115 (58.4) 0.0092
Confidence in patient safety concepts, n (%) 160 (76.6) 166 (84.3) 0.0510

  1. aChi-square test.

Results also revealed that the students perceived the CPPS™ Practice Examination and reviewing the examination questions in class as the most helpful resources to pass the CPPS™ Certification Examination (Table 4).

Table 4:

The perceived benefit of course resources to passing the CPPS™ Certification Examination.

Variable Mean Median Class of 2022; n=238, mean Class of 2023;n=216, mean p-Valuea
IHI module 3.7993921 4 (3–5) 3.68 3.87 0.0905
IHI practice examination 4.3890578 5 (4–5) 4.40 4.38 0.8051
Zoom sessions 3.6778116 4 (3–5) 3.46 3.81 0.0088
Pop quizzes 4.1398176 4 (4–5) 3.98 4.24 0.0244
Questions review 4.2553191 4 (4–5) 4.21 4.28 0.4808

  1. aWilcoxon rank-sum test. CPPS, Certified Professional in Patient Safety; IHI, Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

There was no difference in CPPS™ Certification Examination pass rates between the two academic years; 198 (94.7 %) passed in the class of 2022 compared to 186 (94.4 %) in the Class of 2023, p=0.8866.

Results of the regression model showed that GPA was the only factor associated with the pass rates in the original full set of data (n=443), p value=0.0008 and odds ratio (OR) =1.19 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.08–1.32). Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square =5.7, df=8, p=0.67, and c statistic =0.66. None of the precourse perceptions were associated with passing the CPPS™ Certification Examination after adjusting for GPA.

Qualitative data results

We summarized the results of the student’s answers to the open-ended questions into three main general themes: course instructional methods, perceived value of the course, and feedback about the CPPS™ Certification Examination. Table 5 shows a summary of these themes.

Table 5:

Summary of themes concerning the patient safety course instructional methods, value of the course, and experience taking the CPPS™ Certification Examination.

Area/description Representative quotes
1. Course instructional and delivery methods
1.1 The comprehension-check questions, additional review session, and CPPS™ Practice Examination helped students prepare for the certification examination. “The best part was going through each individual question and learning why each answer choice was wrong or correct.”

“The practice questions and review sessions going over practice questions was incredibly helpful for the actual examination.”

“Course prepared me for the examination, would have been near impossible without 2-week review course.”
1.2 Students liked the course organization and having multiple resources “Course was extremely well organized, and overall spacing of the course was excellent.”

“The IHI courses were good for an introduction to the material, the class knowledge helped to reinforce and expand upon the material, and the practice questions were critical in assessing knowledge.”
1.3 Students liked the flexibility and convenience of the small cohorts utilizing synchronous online sessions. “The Zoom sessions were very helpful in going over the material”

“I think remote learning and Zoom were great. Even better than attending an in-person lecture, in my opinion. It is extremely beneficial for students who are rotating outside of the DFW area.”
1.4 Case study activities could be more engaging or more relevant to medical students by excluding nonhealthcare case studies. “Tweak the group activities to include simulations for public safety professionals. For example, a group activity to make an RCA for a certain scenario. This will help us better understand the steps that go into it.”
2. Perceived value of the course
2.1 Students realized the magnitude of the patient safety problem “Patient safety is something that I had assumed was the top priority of hospitals. I now know that it should be, and may be said to be, but the proof is in the numbers.”
2.2 Just culture and systems thinking were the most valued concepts by students. “A just culture is important to encouraging patient safety and reporting of near misses in a hospital. Everyone should feel secure and safe enough to speak up about a mistake.”

“Medicine has a way to go to become a high-reliability organization, but leaders in patient safety can all contribute to achieving such a goal. One of the most important components in my opinion to start with is establishing a Just Culture and creating a culture of safety at an institution.”

“I’m glad we received information from a systems standpoint.”

“Patient safety is best improved with systemic changes and forcing functions.”
2.3 Students felt empowered to recognize patient safety issues and said they have tools that they will continue to develop and use. “As a medical student, I am well within the realm of making an impactful change in whatever organization I am rotating through. Recognize and participate in conversations about patient safety projects and events.”

“Patient safety is now in my tool bag, and I will continue to develop and use it as a means of affecting patient safety in an industry that is not as reliable as it should or could be.”
2.4 Students thought the course added value to their residency application and GME. “The course provided me with valuable information that I will take with me into residency and the rest of my career. This course reminded me [about] the importance of being a patient advocate and how far that truly extends.”

“The course director made the process clear-cut and gave us all the resources we needed to present this course to others on our ERAS and during interview pitches.”
2.5 Students enjoyed the course more than they had expected and were surprised by the nature of the information covered in the course. “I was surprised by how much I ended up enjoying learning about the material and the overall course experience.”

“I was surprised by how interesting each facet of patient safety was. It sounds like a relatively easy topic, but deep-diving shows that it is extremely complex and important to know.”
2.6 Students realized the course helped them with other standardized tests. “I was surprised by how useful the information was when taking the NBME HSS examination and even for the board examination since patient safety is a component of both examinations.”
3. Experience taking the CPPS TM Certification Exam
3.1 The examination was similar to the review material available in the course, but some content was new. “Everything we have learned during the 2 weeks was extremely important to answering questions in the examination. There did appear to be some content not covered in the course that appeared in the examination.”

“The examination was very similar in both type and difficulty to that of the CPPS™ Practice Examination.”
3.2 Most students mentioned the examination was fair and they had no issues taking it. “It (CPPS TM Certification Examination) was good, I did not have any difficulties taking it.”

  1. CPPS, Certified Professional in Patient Safety; DFW, Dallas–Fort Worth; ERAS, Electronic Residency Application Service®. GME, graduate medical education; HSS, Health Systems Science; IHI, Institute for Healthcare Improvement; NBME, National Board of Medical Examiners; RCA, root cause analysis. The text that is italics are verbatim quotes and are considered self-explanatory.

Discussion

Patient safety issues are still a major concern globally. A broader, intensive, mandatory UME (undergraduate medical education) curriculum is recommended to train all medical students on how to address the myriad of patient safety issues they will face in healthcare [11], [12], [13], [14]. TCOM was the first medical school in the United States to design a novel third-year 2-credit-hour course addressing all five domains of patient safety, in collaboration with the IHI. All students are required to pass the course in order to advance to Year Four.

The findings of our study demonstrate that patient safety can be incorporated into curriculum with minor modifications of the schedule and with a major impact on students’ knowledge and perceptions. In addition, we found that the CPPS™ Certification Examination pass rates were significantly above the national average. Students’ perceptions of the course’s value were extremely positive in the quantitative and qualitative data analyses.

Students in the study ranked the importance of leadership significantly lower in the postcourse assessment compared to the precourse assessment. Although more than 90 % of students still rated leadership to be important in both assessments, the comments demonstrated a realization that everyone has a role in patient safety, not just leaders, thus emphasizing the importance of creating and sustaining a culture of safety involving the entire organization [4].

It is important to note that only the student’s GPA was a predictor of examination success, not the student’s precourse perceptions or change in knowledge scores. Our findings indicate the students’ performance on the CPPS™ Certification Examination was consistent with the rest of their courses in their curriculum.

Results from the qualitative data analysis indicate that the students’ perceptions were extremely positive about the course and taking the CPPS™ Certification Examination. Despite initial concerns about the added workload, the students’ comments demonstrated that they genuinely saw merit and value in the content of the course and were shocked by the magnitude of the problem. Numerous comments referred to “having the tools” to address patient safety issues, which goes beyond just raising awareness. The course objectives, as mentioned earlier, are aligned with the milestones set by the ACGME. Therefore, students who successfully pass the course are better positioned in their residency to contribute more effectively to addressing patient safety issues by: 1) identifying system factors that lead to patient safety events; 2) reporting patient safety events; and 3) creating and implementing quality improvement initiatives.

Evidence from the study findings shows a statistically significant increase in positive perceptions of the importance of learning about patient safety, achieving certification, and the value to residency applications after completing the course compared to before the course. This finding was also true between classes, where we saw a significant improvement in positive perception of the aforementioned areas in the Class of 2023 compared to the Class of 2022.

Most students liked the flexibility offered by the synchronous learning structure and the small-group discussions when evaluating the instructional methods and course delivery. Above all, they truly valued the time dedicated to discussing the comprehension check and practice questions at the end of every session, and many students mentioned that this review was key to passing the examination. One of the most prominent opportunities cited by the students was making the course shorter. However, there was one cohort that had to finish the course in 1 week due to inclement winter weather, and most of the comments indicated that the students in that cohort felt rushed and overwhelmed. Importantly, CPPS™ Certification Examination pass rates were lower for this cohort. Similarly, some students asked for more practice questions. More than 200 questions are reviewed over nine classes in the 2-week period. Therefore, it is unlikely that adding more questions will improve the examination pass rate above 94 %.

Although there were some concerns about the format of the classes, as some students preferred to review the material on their own and only attend an optional review session, most students thought that the live course was instrumental to their success in passing the examination. In addition, there were some comments about examination question topics not covered in the review course. It is important to explain to medical students the difference between studying for the CPPS™ Certification Examination and the actual boards. This finding was confirmed by the results of the regression model. Because GPA was the only significant predictor of passing the examination, we do not perceive that a difference in the course or testing modality actually impacts student learning.

Limitations

The study involves results from only a single institution, and there was no control group. Further research utilizing multiple sites will validate the results. However, the study results are very valuable in assessing the course and the remarkable Certification Examination pass rates achieved, as compared to all professionals taking the examination nationally and internationally. Finally, we did encounter some missing data in the results, because students were not forced to provide feedback on all survey items. We believe that the missing data did not mitigate our results because we were still able to achieve complete pre- and postcourse responses from 89.4 % of the students. In addition, the CPPS™ Certification Examination pass rates were the same for all students, compared to those who provided complete responses. Therefore, we are confident that our results were not impacted by self-selection bias.

Conclusions

This is the first study to closely examine the results of TCOM’s Patient Safety Course and the high pass rates on the CPPS™ Certification Examination. We should not lose sight of how this curriculum will impact these students as future residents and attending physicians. Further research is needed to survey the TCOM graduates during their residency to assess the implementation of their patient safety knowledge and achievement of improved outcomes.

Corresponding author: Lillee Gelinas, DNP, RN, CPPS, Associate Professor and Patient Safety Section Director, Department of Medical Education and Health System Science, Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107-2644, USA, E-mail:

  1. Research ethics: The local Institutional Review Board deemed the study exempt from review.

  2. Informed consent: Not applicable.

  3. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  4. Use of Large Language Models, AI and Machine Learning Tools: None declared.

  5. Conflict of interest: None declared.

  6. Research funding: None declared.

  7. Data availability: The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

1. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in AmericaKohn, LT, Corrigan, JM, Donaldson, MS, editors. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. 2, Errors in Health Care: A Leading Cause of Death and Injury https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225187/.Search in Google Scholar

2. James, JT. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf 2013;9:122–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0b013e3182948a69.Search in Google Scholar

3. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Public health focus: surveillance, prevention, and control of nosocomial infections. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1992;41:783–7.Search in Google Scholar

4. Institute of Medicine. Preventing medication errors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2007. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11623/preventing-medication-errors.Search in Google Scholar

5. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Saving lives and saving money: hospital-acquired conditions update. Content last reviewed January 2018. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. https://www.ahrq.gov/hai/pfp/2014-final.html.Page7.Search in Google Scholar

6. Nanji, KC, Patel, A, Shaikh, S, Seger, DL, Bates, DW. Evaluation of perioperative medication errors and adverse drug events. Anesthesiology 2016;124:25–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0000000000000904.Search in Google Scholar

7. Acevedo, E, Kuo, LE. The economics of patient surgical safety. Surg Clin 2021;101:135–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2020.09.005.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Singh, H, Meyer, AN, Thomas, EJ. The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving adult populations. BMJ Qual Saf 2014;23:727–31. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002627.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

9. Levinson, DR, US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Adverse events in skilled nursing facilities: national incidence among medicare beneficiaries (OEI-06-11-00370). Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General; 2014. https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-11-00370.asp.Search in Google Scholar

10. Barach, P, Small, SD. Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ 2000;320:759–63. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.759.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

11. Lucian Leape Institute. Unmet needs: teaching physicians to provide safe patient care. Boston, MA: National Patient Safety Foundation; 2010. https://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Publications/Unmet-Needs-Teaching-Physicians-to-Provide-Safe-Patient-Care.aspx.Search in Google Scholar

12. Nie, Y, Li, L, Duan, Y, Chen, P, Barraclough, BH, Zhang, M, et al.. Patient Safety Education for undergraduate medical students: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ 2011;11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-33.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

13. Howarth, SD, Fielden, SA, O’Hara, JK. How do we educate medical students interprofessionally about patient safety? A scoping review. J Interprof Care 2021;36:259–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2021.1878116.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. WHO patient safety curriculum guide for medical schools. World Health Organization; 1999. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241598316. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241598316 [Accessed 20 Aug 2024].Search in Google Scholar

15. Gelinas, LS, Reynolds, CD, Lindsley, J, Lieto, J. Generating a future vision of patient safety: a pilot program to test the integration of Certified Professional in Patient SafetyTM curriculum into undergraduate medical education. J Med Edu Curric Dev 2021;8:238212052110258. https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205211025854.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

16. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Internal medicine milestones the accreditation Council for graduate medical education. Chicago, IL: ACGME; 2020:1–29 pp. https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pdfs/milestones/internalmedicinemilestones.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Supplementary Material

This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2023-0248).

Received: 2024-08-29
Accepted: 2025-04-15
Published Online: 2025-05-23

© 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Innovations
  3. Original Article
  4. Assessing fundamental clinical skills of osteopathic medical students
  5. Medical Education
  6. Original Article
  7. Incorporating the Certified Professional in Patient Safety credential into undergraduate medical curriculum: assessment and lessons learned
  8. Musculoskeletal Medicine and Pain
  9. Original Article
  10. Soft tissue manipulation enhances recovery of muscle mass in a disuse model of sarcopenia
  11. Neuromusculoskeletal Medicine (OMT)
  12. Review Article
  13. Effectiveness of osteopathic manual treatment in the elderly population: a scoping review of clinical evidence
  14. Pediatrics
  15. Review Article
  16. Swelling and skin changes: an osteopathic approach to pediatric lymphedema management
  17. Clinical Image
  18. Seatbelt sign
  19. Corrigendum
  20. Corrigendum to: Comprehensive review of the heart failure management guidelines presented by the American College of Cardiology and the current supporting evidence
https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2023-0248
Keywords for this article
certification; curriculum; medical education; patient safety; undergraduate medical education; United States
Creative Commons
BY 4.0

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Innovations
  3. Original Article
  4. Assessing fundamental clinical skills of osteopathic medical students
  5. Medical Education
  6. Original Article
  7. Incorporating the Certified Professional in Patient Safety credential into undergraduate medical curriculum: assessment and lessons learned
  8. Musculoskeletal Medicine and Pain
  9. Original Article
  10. Soft tissue manipulation enhances recovery of muscle mass in a disuse model of sarcopenia
  11. Neuromusculoskeletal Medicine (OMT)
  12. Review Article
  13. Effectiveness of osteopathic manual treatment in the elderly population: a scoping review of clinical evidence
  14. Pediatrics
  15. Review Article
  16. Swelling and skin changes: an osteopathic approach to pediatric lymphedema management
  17. Clinical Image
  18. Seatbelt sign
  19. Corrigendum
  20. Corrigendum to: Comprehensive review of the heart failure management guidelines presented by the American College of Cardiology and the current supporting evidence
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 9.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jom-2023-0248/html?recommended=sidebar
Scroll to top button