Implementation and challenges of patient safety education for undergraduate nursing students: a scoping review

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to map and analyze the existing literature on the development of patient safety knowledge in undergraduate nursing education, with a focus on the implementation modalities, effectiveness, and evaluation instruments of patient safety education programs, and to describe the challenges encountered when delivering patient safety education to undergraduate nursing students.

Methods

This scoping review followed Arksey and O’Malley’s 5-step framework and adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guideline. A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple Chinese and English databases, including CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase. This review imposed no language restrictions on published publications, with the search period spanning from the inception of each database to 2024. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were synthesized narratively; quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data were subjected to narrative synthesis.

Results

Of 2,622 retrieved records, 19 studies published between 2009 and 2024 met inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies (76%) originated from Asia. Study designs were predominantly quasi‑experimental (≈ 70%), with four randomised controlled trials (≈ 23%), two mixed‑methods studies, and one qualitative study; sample sizes ranged from 21 to 181. Interventions varied in content and duration and commonly comprised lectures, group discussions, case analysis, and scenario‑based simulation; several programmes referenced WHO or QSEN frameworks. Outcomes chiefly addressed students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes; behavioural and outcome‑level measures were infrequently reported. Frequently used instruments included the H‑PEPSS and WHO‑derived questionnaires. Reported implementation challenges included short intervention duration, small sample sizes, single‑site designs, limited faculty training, reliance on self‑report measures, and lack of long‑term follow‑up.

Conclusions

Patient safety curricula for undergraduate nursing students should be standardized across the entire nursing program, delivered through a diverse array of educational modalities, and evaluated using multi-faceted assessment instruments to achieve effective learning and ensure translation into safe practice. Ultimately, fostering a safety culture through robust patient safety education can make a significant contribution to advancements in nursing education and patient safety, benefiting both healthcare providers and recipients.

Clinical trial number

Not applicable.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-026-04451-z.

Background

Patient safety is an enduring priority in health care. It is influenced by many factors, including the patients themselves, the nature of their illnesses, health care personnel, and environmental and equipment factors; among these, health‑care personnel are the predominant determinant. Nurses have the most frequent contact with patients and perform complex, detail‑intensive tasks, which increases the risk of nursing errors and occupational exposures [1]. Studies indicate that safeguarding patient safety depends on mastery of patient‑safety knowledge and skills and on the cultivation of a patient‑safety culture; consequently, strengthening patient‑safety education for medical and nursing students has been advocated as an effective protective measure [2]. As future members of the nursing workforce, undergraduate nursing students’ attitudes and behaviours regarding patient safety will directly affect clinical safety, and the development of their safety awareness provides the foundation for future safe nursing practice [3].

Patient safety is a key indicator of the quality of medical and nursing care, and patient‑safety education has become an essential component of health‑professional education [4]. Patient‑safety training is a fundamental strategy for developing students’ ability to prevent and respond to clinical risks and has been shown to improve nursing students’ patient‑safety awareness [1]. Therefore, patient‑safety education within nursing warrants greater attention.

The Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) and the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE) require nursing programs to integrate patient safety education and explicitly reference the core competency standards outlined in the AACN Essentials (2021) [5, 6]. CCNE’s accreditation standards directly adopt the AACN Essentials as the curriculum design framework, emphasizing core domains such as quality, safety, and interprofessional collaboration [7]. Although AACN Essentials formally accredits nursing programs within the United States, its framework and competencies are frequently adopted or adapted by nursing organizations worldwide. Regions such as Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, South Korea, and China have referenced AACN Essentials to inform their own educational reforms [8–11]. For instance, the Canadian Patient Safety Institute developed its patient-safety competency domains, which closely align with the spirit of the AACN Essentials, covering areas such as safety culture promotion, risk management, and effective communication [12]. Similarly, several nursing programs in South Korea have begun integrating patient-safety courses into their undergraduate curricula, albeit with varying effectiveness and delivery methods [13]. The integration of patient safety competencies is not only a concern for individual countries but also a key driver in the development of global nursing program curricula, further underscoring the universal priority of this topic.

However, a significant chasm persists between the establishment of these educational benchmarks and their effective execution. Globally, nursing education has often failed to integrate patient safety in depth, resulting in a persistent theory-practice gap [14]. This is manifested as a disconnection between knowledge acquisition, safety-culture cultivation, and behavioral practice. The situation is further complicated by conceptual ambiguities and an imbalance in global research production, with approximately 73% of evidence originating from Western countries [15].

The challenges inherent in this global implementation gap are acutely visible in the Chinese context. Presently, China lacks a clear, systematic model for undergraduate patient-safety education [16]. Within academic settings, dedicated courses are scarce, and instruction often prioritizes theoretical knowledge over clinical reasoning. In clinical practice, hospital-based training for interns and new nurses is typically fragmented and lacks standardization. A critical disconnect exists between these two spheres, with limited communication and collaboration, ultimately failing to ensure a seamless transition for students into safe practitioners [17].

A scoping review that clarifies the implementation and challenges of patient safety education is therefore essential to address this gap. By systematically mapping the evidence and analyzing the global literature, this review will provide a foundational reference for enhancing both academic and clinical education, with the ultimate goal of achieving safer nursing care.

Objective

A scoping review was conducted to systematically search for and analyze domestic and international literature on patient safety education for undergraduate nursing students. The specific aims were to:

1. Summarize the principal implementation modalities of patient safety education and their distinguishing characteristics.

2. Describe the methods used to measure the short- and long-term effects of educational interventions on students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

3. Identify key practical barriers (for example, inadequate faculty training and incomplete evaluation systems).

The results of this scoping review will synthesize the existing evidence to identify what is known and what remains unclear about patient safety curricula. This synthesis is intended to inform the optimization of nursing school curricula and the future development of a standardized training framework. A preliminary search of the CINAHL and PubMed databases identified Lee et al.‘s review [18] evaluated tested patient safety education interventions, such as course structure and teaching strategies, to cultivate nursing students’ patient safety competencies. Kim et al. [19] focused on evaluating the effectiveness of patient safety education for nursing students and clinical nurses, while Aldardeir et al. [15] examined the integration, teaching strategies, and cultural adaptability of patient safety curricula in undergraduate medical education from a global comparative perspective. The current literature landscape indicates that existing syntheses often stop at describing existing interventions, yet fall short in providing detailed accounts of how they are characterized and standardized, how their impacts are rigorously measured, and what systemic challenges impede their success. Therefore, our scoping review delves into implementation characteristics, evaluation methodologies, and real-world barriers, offering a more comprehensive evidence landscape to fill this gap.

Methods

Study design

This scoping review was conducted by the PRISMA‑ScR checklist [20] and followed the five‑stage methodological framework for scoping reviews proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [21]. The review protocol was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) (Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/RZS2V).

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria were developed using the PCC (Participants, Concept, Context) framework recommended for scoping reviews.

Population: Undergraduate nursing students.

Concept: Patient safety education and its implementation methods, evaluation approaches, application effectiveness, and implementation barriers.

Context: Patient safety education contents encompass both school-based and hospital-based education.

Search strategy

Searches combined MeSH subject headings and free‑text terms. The search timeframe covered records indexed through 25 March 2024. The following databases were searched:

Chinese databases: WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP (Weipu), and the China Biology Medicine (CBM) disc.

English databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase.

Grey literature search via ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, OSF.io, and the websites of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing(AACN) and Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care.

In addition to electronic database searches, we performed supplementary grey literature searches and targeted searches for qualitative studies on October 29 2025.

The comprehensive search strategies for all databases are provided in Supplementary Material.

Inclusion criteria

Describing and evaluating patient‑safety education interventions were eligible for inclusion if they met all of the following criteria:

1. Types of sources include quantitative research, qualitative research, and mixed-methods research, and gray literature can also help ensure comprehensive search.

2. Population: undergraduate nursing students or undergraduate nursing interns.

3. Studies that focused on the implementation, outcome evaluation, or experience of patient-safety education in undergraduate nursing programs.

Exclusion criteria

Studies were excluded based on population if they involved diploma-level students or other health-professional students instead of undergraduate nursing students. Studies were also excluded based on concept and context if they did not describe the teaching methods or assessment content related to patient safety.

Study selection

The literature search and selection process followed the PRISMA‑ScR guidelines. Initially, 2,622 records were retrieved and imported into EndNote, after which duplicates were removed, leaving 1,489 records. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts, followed by a full‑text review. Any discrepancies in study selection were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. This process yielded 59 full-text articles for detailed evaluation. Of these, 40 were excluded—primarily due to the absence of patient safety assessment interventions or heterogeneous study populations—resulting in 19 studies included in the final scoping review. The study selection process and outcomes are summarized in the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flow diagram of study screening. Additional searches of grey literature and targeted searches for qualitative studies were conducted, and two qualitative studies were included

Data extraction

A pilot-tested data extraction form was used to ensure consistency. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion until consensus was achieved. The extracted data included: publication details (author, year, country), study characteristics, participant information, intervention details (content, teaching methods, duration), and outcomes (evaluation instruments, key findings on knowledge, skills, attitudes, and reported barriers).

Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

Following the scoping review objective to map and describe the literature, the extracted data were collated and organised into evidence tables. To address the review questions, the findings were then descriptively summarised based on categories derived from the PCC framework and sub-questions. For quantitative outcomes, results were grouped by common intervention types and outcome domains to illustrate the range and patterns of reported knowledge, skill, and attitude measures. For textual data regarding implementation barriers and contextual factors, we identified and categorised recurring concepts reported across the studies. This process involved iterative review and team discussion to ensure a consistent and comprehensive descriptive summary of the literature, culminating in a structured reporting of findings aligned with the review’s objectives without attempting to appraise or synthetise evidence.

Results

Characteristics of included studies

Table 1 summarises the characteristics of the 19 included studies, which were published between 2009 and 2024. Seven studies were conducted in China [1, 2, 16, 22–25], three in the United States [26–28], one in the United Kingdom [29], one in Spain [30], two in Iran [12, 14], one in Pakistan [31], and three in South Korea [13, 32, 33]. With respect to study design, the majority were quasi‑experimental [1, 2, 13, 14, 22, 23, 27, 30, 31, 33]; two of these [27, 30] reported only within‑group pre‑ and post‑intervention measurements and lacked a control arm. Four studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [12, 23, 24, 32]. Three studies employed mixed‑methods designs incorporating reflective journals [25, 28, 31]. One study was a non‑experimental pretest–posttest design [29], and another used a retrospective pre‑post approach intended to mitigate pretest‑unawareness bias and reduce the risk of intentional score inflation. Notably, methodological reporting across studies was inconsistent. Only seven studies explicitly mentioned obtaining ethical approval from an institutional review board [13, 27–29, 31–33], and just two described strategies to ensure intervention fidelity, such as using standardized teaching protocols or application calibration [31, 33]. Few studies provide the basis for their sample size calculations. Furthermore, while all studies evaluated student outcomes, the assessment methods varied widely—from knowledge-based quizzes and Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture(HSOPSC) to self-reported safety attitudes. All participants were undergraduate nursing students; interventions were delivered either on campus or during clinical placements. Sample sizes ranged from 21 to 181 participants.

Table 1.

Characteristics of selected studies

Author (Year, Country)	Study Type	Participants	Intervention Content	Duration & Frequency	Teaching Methods	Key Findings / Outcomes
Jiang, H. (2015, China)	Quasi- experim ental (Interven tion, Control + Pre- Post)	52 undergraduate nursing students	Patient safety background, related research progress, and patient safety in high-risk clinical departments.	Once weekly, 2 h/session, 7 sessions total.	PPT, group discussion, case analysis, and audiovisual methods.	The patient safety training course effectively improved undergraduate nursing students’ knowledge level and overall cognitive status regarding patient safety. However, short-term training for pre-licensure students did not show significant changes in attitudes and behaviors.
Li, Y.Z. (2014, China)	Quantitative (Intervention, Control + Pre-Post)	441 five-year undergraduate nursing students	Overview of domestic and international patient safety status; WHO Patient Safety Solutions; analysis of hidden safety risks in clinical nursing; common unsafe factors for inpatients and preventive measures; clinical safety nursing aligned with patient safety goals; medication safety nursing; safety barrier design and management; hospital safety culture and nursing risk management.	Total 20 h, conducted over 10 sessions.	Theoretical lectures, reporting, and exchange sessions.	In 5 modules, the intervention group scored higher than the control group in the “Knowledge related to medical errors” module and the “What should I do after a medical error occurs” module. Establishing a patient safety education course significantly improved undergraduate nursing students’ patient safety knowledge, attitudes, and skills.
Liu, Y. (2017, China)	RCT (Controlled for confounding factors)	172 undergraduate nursing students	WHO’s “Patient Safety Curriculum Guide” as framework: concepts, adverse events, communication, infection prevention and control, risk management.	5 weeks, once weekly, 80 min/ session.	Case-oriented teaching, flipped classroom.	Students’ safety culture cognition level was not high before the intervention. Case-oriented teaching could prevent the decline in students’ safety culture cognition caused by internship experience by improving professional recognition.
Liu, Y.L. (2009, China)	Quasi- experim ental (Interven tion, Control + Pre- Post)	42 final-year nursing undergraduates in an internship, divided into 5 groups of 5–10, in medical/surgical units of a tertiary hospital.	Assessment of patient admission safety, fall prevention, reporting, and analysis of nursing adverse events.	3 discussions in sessions, ~ 2 h each.	PBL(Problem-Based Learning) - teacher selection, case development, teaching organization.	The PBL teaching method was beneficial for students’ mastery of patient safety knowledge and improvement of comprehensive abilities. Students gave high evaluations of the teaching and cases.
Zhu, W.F. (2017, China)	Quasi- experim ental (Interven tion, Control)	183 undergraduate nursing students (Class of 2014)	Integrated patient safety education into Fundamentals of Nursing module: environmental safety assessment, common unsafe factors in hospitals, and protective measures. Content not emphasized in other teaching modules.	40 h total.	Theoretical teaching: using real patient safety cases as an entry point. Skill training: situational simulation and case discussion to guide mastery of patient safety skills, effectively applying them to nursing techniques.	Integrating patient safety education into Fundamentals of Nursing teaching helped improve students’ awareness and skills in patient safety nursing.
Xu, Y. (2013, China)	RCT	120 undergraduate nursing students	“Patient admission nursing”, “Falls”, “Medication errors” (Case topics).	Total 220 teaching hours.	Case-based teaching (Selecting cases based on content; implementation includes pre-class mobilization, classroom discussion, and post-class summary).	Patient safety case-based teaching was beneficial for improving nursing students’ understanding and application of safety knowledge and their ability to solve practical problems.
Ahmed et al. (2023, Pakistan)	Quasi-experimental (Pre-Post test with reflective journals)	146 year 2 and 139 year 4 bachelor of science in nursing students	Lectures on: (1) Science of patient safety; (2) Effective communication; (3) Conflict management; (4) Error disclosure; (5) Learning from defects; (6) Human and system factors; (7) Medical record documentation.	4.5-day Quality Improvement and Patient Safety course.	Course lectures, case discussions, and workshops. Practical skills development workshops (lecture, discussion, workshop).	Both student groups showed significant increases in PS knowledge, self-efficacy, and systems thinking. Year 2 students scored significantly higher on the post-course knowledge assessment and showed greater knowledge gain compared to Year 4 students. Both cohorts showed progress in systems thinking after the course.
N. Cantero- López et al. (2021, Spain)	Quasi-experimental (No control group, Pre-Post intervention)	N = 100 3rd-year nursing students (Universitat Jaume I, Spain) during clinical practice.	Clinical Practice: Medication administration errors, falls during patient mobilization, rescue failures. Case Analysis: Analyze real malpractice cases (e.g., “Denver Nurse Case”) in class, exploring systemic vulnerabilities (e.g., communication failures, process flaws) rather than blaming individuals. Use Root Cause Analysis (RCA) to identify root causes in the error chain (e.g., system imperfections, inadequate training) and reflect on improvements.	Phase I: 120-minute classroom session (case). Phase II: Clinical practice. Study conducted Jan 2018-Dec 2019.	RCA and critical incident technique, case analysis. Classroom case analysis and clinical practice (simulation training).	The educational intervention combining significant events and RCA techniques improved nursing students’ attitudes towards patient safety. Phase I (classroom intervention) effect was significant; Phase II (clinical practice) did not yield further significant improvement.
K. T. Gleason et al. (2019, USA)	Mixed Methods (Teaching method with reflective journals)	Pre-licensure nursing students (n = 115)	Overview of patient safety culture & healthcare safety culture; facilitators and contextual factors affecting safety and quality; introduction to multiple methods for improving safety and quality; translating evidence into practice to improve patient safety and capacity building.	4 semesters (includes 3-day course, 6 months of work experience).	Cases, quizzes, lectures & small group discussions, one-on-one mentor guidance, reflective journals, monthly seminars, scientific poster design and presentation.	The Fuld Fellows Program effectively introduced fundamental patient safety and quality improvement concepts to a select group of pre-licensure nursing students. Fellows reported higher levels of systems thinking and greater improvement in patient safety competencies after participating in the program.
S. E. Lee et al. (2023, South Korea)	Quasi-experimental	107 2nd, 3rd, 4th-year undergraduate nursing students (Intervention n = 40, Control = 67).	WHO “Multi-professional Patient Safety Curriculum Guide”: Core knowledge areas. Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI) competency framework: Emphasizing practical competency development. Topics: 1. Basic PS theory; 2. Safety culture & teamwork; Risk & adverse event management; Quality management tools & methods; Practical projects & case analysis; Interprofessional integration.	8-week standalone patient safety course.	Case studies, group discussions, lectures, and video-based blended learning, case analysis (Near Miss, real adverse events), tool application (fishbone diagram, SBAR), role-play (adverse event disclosure), formative assessment (weekly quizzes, individual/group work like RCA reports), summative assessment (group project presentation PPT, peer evaluation).	This study showed the potential of a standalone PS course to improve nursing students’ PS competency, knowledge, and attitudes. The course, through systematic design, interdisciplinary content, and blended teaching methods significantly enhanced knowledge, competency, and attitude. Its effectiveness was leading among similar studies, especially the knowledge enhancement rate (46.8%) far exceeded previous Korean studies.
A. D. Jones et al. (2013, USA)	Quasi-experimental (No control group, Pre-Post intervention)	Associate degree nursing students enrolled in first semester nursing course (N = 84 initially, 76 completed)	QSEN overview & safety competency intro, QSEN safety tools. Theoretical teaching & weekly activities: Wk1: “Room of Errors” skills lab activity (simulated patient room with 20 hidden hazards). Wk2: Reformulating SBAR to I-SBAR-R communication model. Wk3: Integrating PS & patient-centered care principles, standardized assessment form. Wk4: 60-second safety scan training in patient room. Wk5: Assigning “Safety Monitor” role for compliance supervision. Followed by 6 weeks of clinical practice.	6 weeks theory, 6 weeks bi-weekly clinical experience.	Simulation, theory.	Findings indicated a strong correlation between teaching QSEN safety competency strategies didactically and clinically, improving student safety awareness for high-quality patient care. Quantified: Significant decrease in belief that “medical errors are inevitable” (p = 0.004). Significant improvement in attitude towards “health professionals need to tolerate uncertainty” (p = 0.001). Clinical Performance: Students successfully identified and addressed clinical safety hazards (e.g., oxygen not turned on, missing patient ID bands, unlocked beds).
Y. M. Kim et al. (2019, South Korea)	Quasi-experimental	75 undergradu ate nursing students total; Experiment al group (n = 32); Control group (n = 43).	Used a flipped classroom to discuss topics from WHO Patient Safety Curriculum Guide. Module 1: Intro to PS (key concepts, intl. goals). Module 2: Human factors, systems thinking, team communication. Module 3: Risk management, quality improvement, and incident reporting. Module 4: Strategy implementation (e.g., developing QI projects).	14 weekly 2-hour sessions (total 28 hours): 9 online learning sessions & 5 face-to-face discussion sessions.	Online lectures and quizzes, case studies, small and large discussions, incident reporting tasks, group projects, including developing patient safety strategies.	Patient safety competency levels increased after completing the course. Participating students showed significantly higher levels compared to those who did not take the patient safety course.
Julie Sanford et al. (2021, USA)	Retrospe ctive Pre-test/Post-test design	21 nursing students from 6 countries (60% undergraduate, 40% graduate).	Systems thinking, reflective practice, person-centered care, safety science, intercultural team collaboration and communication, and QSEN content.	10 days.	Case studies, reflective learning, gaming strategies, simulation learning, and interactive small and large group work (short theoretical bursts). Blended learning: Online preparatory workshop combined with a 10-day immersive offline workshop. Practice-oriented activities.	Statistical analysis showed increased student confidence levels in all eight safe practice areas post-education compared to pre-education (significance, P < 0.05). Two overarching themes, reaction to the shared learning experience and shared areas of learning and development, reflected competency and new cultural understanding in nurse quality and safety education.
M. Mansour et al. (2015, UK)	Pre-test/Post-test, Non-experimental design	181 4th-year nursing students	Define scope & importance of PS; analyze systemic risks in healthcare systems (process, system flaws); explore multifactorial causes of unsafe care (practice, product, process, or system issues). Error classification & root cause analysis (e.g., diagnostic errors, medication errors); establish non-punitive error reporting culture; systemic improvement strategies (e.g., Swiss Cheese Model application).	Lectures: 1.5 h each in Week 2 and Week 8. Followed by a 3-hour Facilitated Group Work (FGW) session in Week 9.	Two face-to-face lectures, simulation, one facilitated group work discussion session.	Statistically significant differences were found in the subscales for ‘Errors and Patient Safety’ and ‘Personal Influence on Safety’. No statistically significant difference in students’ answers regarding PS knowledge pre/post-intervention. Although student nurses highly praised the teaching, using an experimental design in future curriculum evaluation might provide more complementary insights.
J. W. Oh et al. (South Korea)	RCT	44university nursing students (3rd year, no clinical experience, about to start clinical practice).	Patient identification, hand hygiene, medication administration, infection management, and fall prevention.	2 weeks. Pre-test: 15 days before intervention. Post-test: 2 weeks after intervention.	Simulation. Smartphone app (VR-based).	The experimental group showed significant improvement in patient safety competency regarding knowledge, attitude, and performance confidence compared to the control group. Findings suggest mobile app-based education using virtual reality may be effective for enhancing patient safety management in nursing education.
Mahnaz Padash et al. (2025, Iran)	RCT	30 students each from 3rd and 4th year nursing programs (Total N = 60).	Session 1: Risk management basics & risk identification. Session 2: Risk analysis methods & safety culture. Session 3: Safe practices & culture reinforcement.	Three 3-hour sessions.	Lectures, film screening, group discussion. Structured Clinical Risk Management Training.	Clinical risk management training improved nursing students’ patient safety competencies, attitudes towards broader aspects of PS in professional education, and comfort in talking about PS. Implementing and evaluating structured clinical risk management education can enhance PS competencies and enable application in practice. Further research needed on learning packages for students, nurses, and other healthcare providers.
Mahya Torkaman et al. (2020, Iran)	Quasi-experimental	50 undergradu ate nursing students (2nd year, 3rd semester).	Overview of patient safety, clinical safety issues, error reporting, system and human factors, safety tools, and ethical disclosure.	4 h + 8 h workshop and training course. Question naires administ ered pre- interventi on, and at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months post-intervention.	Lecture, PPT, group discussion, role-play, root cause analysis.	Safety education had a positive and significant effect on all aspects of students’ PS competencies. Thus, it seems necessary to consider PS training courses in nursing schools after a proper needs assessment.
Lai, X.Y. et al. (2022, China)	Qualitative	Eleven undergraduate nursing students, all female	The overall curriculum centers on the core themes of “medical risk” and “patient safety,” covering topics such as the current state of medical risk in China, relevant conceptual definitions, classic medical risk theories like Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and their applications, the Core Patient Safety Goals (CHA), adverse event prevention in high-risk departments (Emergency Department, Operating Room, ICU), and patient safety management.	A total of 7 sessions, each lasting 2 to 3 academic hours.	PPT presentations, group discussions, case studies, mobile applications	Following the intervention, all patients demonstrated a significant improvement in their safety competency scores. A summative content analysis of open-ended questions yielded five categories: educational materials, educational level, educational timing, interaction, and educational media.
Cho D B et al. (2022, South Korea)	Mixed-method research	110 nursing students	Modulen 1. troduction to patient safety Module 2. Human factorengineering and systematic approach Module 3. Patient safety law and policy Module 4. Managing patient safety Module 5. Patient safety communication Module 6. Engaging with patients Module 7. Coping with patient safety incidents	The Patient Safety lecture videos, comprising 7 modules, will be streamed live in real time for 210 min according to the schedule.	Online Courses	Following the intervention, all patients demonstrated a significant improvement in their safety competency scores. A summative content analysis of open-ended questions yielded five categories: educational materials, educational level, educational timing, interaction, and educational media.

Implementation of patient‑safety education

Educational content

Curricula addressed a broad array of topics, spanning educational frameworks and theoretical foundations, risk and quality‑management tools, and clinical‑practice safety. Several studies adapted material from international guideline frameworks, notably the WHO Multi‑professional Patient Safety Curriculum Guide and the QSEN (Quality and Safety Education for Nurses) competencies [24, 26, 27, 32]. Theoretical underpinnings frequently cited included patient‑safety science, human‑factors engineering, and systems thinking [14, 24, 27, 30, 31]. Multiple studies incorporated risk‑management and quality‑improvement content [12, 13, 22, 24, 25, 27, 32, 34] three studies emphasised environmental‑safety assessment [2, 27], and several focused on clinical safety practices such as medication safety [23, 29, 31], patient identification [31], infection prevention and control [24, 30, 31], fall prevention [22, 23, 31], and communication and teamwork [30].

Training duration and format

Reported intervention durations varied widely. The shortest programme comprised three sessions totalling six hours [22]; one programme extended across four academic semesters [25], but most interventions were completed within a single semester. Session lengths were typically matched to content (theory: approximately 1.5–2 h; practice: 3–8 h). Seven studies reported training periods of several days to one month [2, 12, 22, 27, 30, 31, 34], while eight studies implemented interventions lasting longer than one month [1, 13, 14, 23, 24, 26, 28, 32]. One Spanish study delivered the curriculum in two phases separated by a two‑year interval [29].

Teaching and learning strategies

Pedagogical approaches emphasised integration of theory and practice, active student participation, and interdisciplinary perspectives. Teaching methods were diverse and commonly combined multiple modalities: lectures with audiovisual support were reported in five studies [1, 14, 30, 32, 34]; case analysis and scenario‑based simulation (including high‑fidelity simulation, standardised patients, root‑cause analysis, and critical‑incident techniques) were among the most frequently used methods [1, 2, 23, 25, 32, 34], and two study employed smartphone app‑assisted training [16, 31]. Didactic or introductory lectures, used as part of experiential learning sequences, featured in five studies [12, 14, 28, 30, 32]. Problem‑based learning (PBL) was adopted in four studies [13, 22, 25, 27]. Several programmes integrated assessment and feedback mechanisms into instruction, including reflective journals, monthly seminars, and root‑cause analysis reports [25, 32].

Overall, the reviewed interventions were characterised by multimodal pedagogies that combined didactic content with experiential learning and formative feedback, reflecting an emphasis on active learning and applied skills development.

Assessment methods and instruments

The assessment of patient safety education requires multi-dimensional tools to comprehensively capture knowledge levels, attitude changes, and behavioral transformation effects. All studies employed quantitative questionnaire evaluations, with some incorporating mixed-method approaches such as personal reflection or focus group interviews. Common assessment approaches observed in the literature included the following:

Self‑developed KAP (Knowledge–Attitude–Practice) instruments frequently used locally developed tools were based on a knowledge–belief–behaviour model; one example comprised 31 items (knowledge 12 items, attitude 9 items, behaviour 10 items) and reported high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.895) [1]. Items typically addressed patient‑safety background, current safety status, safety-management concepts, and analysis of nursing adverse events, and utilised single‑choice, multiple‑choice, and case‑analysis formats. Several studies in China applied a Chinese adaptation of the WHO 2009 undergraduate patient‑safety questionnaire, modified and translated by the Patient Safety Survey Team of the China Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, to evaluate knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions [34]. The adapted instrument comprised 29 items across five dimensions: (A) knowledge related to medical errors (7 items); (B) appropriate actions after a medical error (6 items); (C) emotional responses following an error (4 items); (D) personal attitudes toward patient safety (8 items); and (E) intentions/plans regarding patient safety (4 items). Additionally, standardized international scales are widely adopted due to their high reliability and validity. A prime example is the Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H‑PEPSS), which focuses on six core patient‑safety competency domains (for example, teamwork and risk management), was widely used; cross‑cultural adaptations reported robust psychometric properties (for instance, a Korean validation reported CVI = 0.98 and Cronbach’s α = 0.94) [14, 25, 32]. Knowledge and attitude constructs were also measured using items and short scales developed within the WHO Patient Safety Curriculum and associated resources [24]. As for mixed assessment strategies, several studies integrated standardised quantitative scales (for example, the Systems Thinking Scale, STS) with qualitative methods—such as reflective writing and focus groups—to explore mechanisms underpinning attitudinal and behavioural change [16, 25, 27, 30]. These mixed approaches were effective for capturing reflective learning processes and context‑specific barriers to safe practice. (See Table 2)

Table 2.

Assessment instruments used across studies

Author (Year, Country)	Assessment Tools	Reliability Reported	Tool Features Construct Measured
Jiang, H. (2015, China)	Self-developed questionnaire on nursing students’ patient safety Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP); Patient safety training assessment test.	The overall Cronbach’s alpha for the questionnaire was 0.895, with dimension-specific Cronbach’s alphas of 0.892, 0.745, and 0.836.	The “Knowledge-Belief-Action” framework comprises 31 items: 12 items in the knowledge section, 9 items in the attitude section, and 10 items in the behavior section. All items utilize a 5-point Likert scale.
Li, Y.Z. (2014, China)	Questionnaire adapted and translated by the China Evidence-Based Medicine Center Patient Safety Investigation Group: “WHO 2009 Patient Safety Undergraduate Medical. Education ‘Basic Situation Questionnaire on Patient Safety Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills”.	Unmentioned	This questionnaire consists of 29 items across five dimensions: (A) “Knowledge of Medical Errors” (7 items); (B) “What I Should Do After a Medical Error Occurs” (6 items); (C) “Emotions Following a Medical Error” (4 items); (D) “Personal Attitudes Toward Patient Safety” (8 items); (E) “Your Intentions/Plans Regarding Patient Safety” (4 items). A 5-point rating scale is used, with a maximum score of 5 points and a minimum of 1 point. Higher scores indicate better outcomes.
Liu, Y. (2017, China)	(Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture, HSOPSC) Barriers in Reporting Nursing Adverse Events Questionnaire. Questionnaire on Safety Culture Education Level of Intern Nursing Students. Nursing Students’ Professional Identity Questionnaire.	Overall Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89	12 dimensions of safety culture (42 items total), such as: Teamwork Communication openness Adverse event reporting frequency Non-punitive response to errors Management commitment to safety
Liu, Y.L. (2009, China)	Patient safety knowledge questionnaire; Students’ self- evaluation of gains; Student evaluation of the teaching cases; Student evaluation of teaching.	Unmentioned	Knowledge (via knowledge questionnaires) Attitude/Self-efficacy/Learning Experience (via “self-gains” entries such as “enhanced safety awareness” or “improved problem-solving skills”) Teaching Satisfaction (via lesson plan evaluations)
Zhu, W.F. (2017, China)	Self-developed “Questionnaire on Cognition of Patient Safety” to evaluate students’ awareness.	Overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.82.	The questionnaire comprises three dimensions: awareness of promoting patient safety (7 items), skills for ensuring patient safety (7 items), and psychological comfort during error incident management (5 items), totaling 19 items. A 5-point Likert scale is employed, with response options ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, scored from 1 to 5 points respectively.
Xu, Y. (2013, China)	Self-developed questionnaire: Awareness level of patient safety knowledge Evaluation of case teaching implementation effectiveness	Unmentioned	Includes 16 items such as nurses’ professional ethics and conduct standards, ward environmental safety inspections, patient room environmental safety inspections, and bed unit environmental safety inspections.
Ahmed et al. (2023, Pakistan)	Knowledge assessment Self-efficacy scale Systems Thinking Scale (STS) Personal reflection	System Thinking Scale: α ≈ 0.80–0.85	Knowledge Assessment: This section consists of 20 multiple-choice questions developed based on the PS content domains outlined in resources from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and the Agency for Healthcare Self-Efficacy: Self-efficacy was assessed using a survey comprising 18 statements rated on a 5-point Likert scale. These statements span 9 domains. System Thinking Scale: Comprising 20 (18) items, scored on a 0-to-4 Likert scaleResearch and Quality. Personal Reflection: Students are required to write a 300-word reflection on their experience participating in the course.
N. Cantero- López et al. (2021, Spain)	Attitudes to Patient Safety Questionnaire (APSQ-III)	χ2 = 366;p < 0.001; χ2/df = 1.886; RMSEA = 0.07;95% Cl = 0.059–0.081; CFI = 0.885 Cronbach’s alpha = 0.808 ICC = 0.792	Comprising 22 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree); Six dimensions: Responsibility, Organization & Communication, Teamwork, Training, Notification, Awareness;
K. T. Gleason et al. (2019, USA)	Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H-PEPSS) Systems Thinking Scale (STS) Mentor- trainee satisfaction Focus group interviews	Cronbach’s alpha scores ranged from 0.81 to 0.85 across six domains.	Healthcare Professional Education in Patient Safety Surveys (H-PEPSS): H-PEPSS measures self-reported patient safety competencies by focusing on six safety competency domains: safety culture, collaboration with other healthcare providers, effective communication, risk management, optimization of human and environmental factors, and identification and response to adverse events to assess patient safety learning. Systems Thinking Scale (STS): The STS is a 20-item tool assessing participants’ systems thinking in quality improvement efforts, such as “I consider recurring patterns more important than any specific event” and “I consider relationships among colleagues in my work unit.”
S. E. Lee et al. (2023, South Korea)	Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H-PEPSS) measuring patient safety competency (16 items, 6 domains). Patient safety attitudes (4- item scale developed by WHO PSP). Patient safety knowledge (15 MCQs developed by WHO PSP). Student course evaluation (9 items by WHO PSP).	Validated through Korean translation (Content Validity Index = 0.98, Cronbach’s α overall reliability = 0.94). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the original six-factor model (RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.07, CFI = 0.93).	H-PEPSS: 16 items, divided into 6 subdimensions: Teamwork (3 items) Effective Communication (3 items) Safety Risk Management (3 items) Understanding Human and Environmental Factors (2 items) Identifying and Responding to Adverse Events (2 items) Safety Culture (3 items)
A. D. Jones et al. (2013, USA)	Health Professional Practice Safety Assessment Clinical Evaluation (HPPSACS) -34-item questionnaire assessing students’ self-rated patient safety assessment.	Overall α ≈ 0.90, with subscale α values ranging from 0.70 to 0.88.	Patient Safety Knowledge Attitudes Toward Patient Safety Perceived Skills/Confidence in Safety Practices
Y. M. Kim et al. (2019, South Korea)	Patient Safety Competency Self-Evaluation (PSCSE) survey: Attitudes, Skills, Knowledge.	Cronbach alpha = 0.91	PSCSE is a self-report instrument comprising 41 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, divided into three subscales: Attitude (14 items), Skills (21 items), and Knowledge (6 items).
Julie Sanford et al. (2021, USA)	Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H- PEPSS), combined with qualitative analysis of reflective writing to reveal changes in attitudes and cultural perceptions.	Unmentioned	Reflect indirectly through thematic analysis: Attitudes Awareness / Cognitive Shift Professional Identity & Commitment Interprofessional Collaboration
M. Mansour et al. (2015, UK)	A 28-item, 4-page questionnaire developed by the WHO Patient Safety Programme. Knowledge questions on patient safety topics. 16-item student feedback section on effectiveness of PS teaching in the intervention.	Unmentioned	Fundamental concepts of patient safety Human and system factors Teamwork and communication Patient involvement Learning from errors Relevance and teaching quality
J. W. Oh et al. (2023, South Korea)	Patient safety management knowledge tool. Scale measuring nursing students’ attitudes towards patient safety management. Scale measuring confidence in patient safety management performance.	Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.70, 0.82, and 0.92, respectively.	Patient Safety Management Knowledge: This instrument was developed to assess nursing students’ knowledge of patient safety. It consists of 10 items scored on a 2-point Likert scale. Items 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 are reverse-scored, yielding a score range from 0 to 10. Patient Safety Management Attitude: This tool consists of 10 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Each question is scored as follows: “Strongly Disagree” = 1 point, “Disagree” = 2 points, “Neutral” = 3 points, ‘Agree’ = 4 points, and “Strongly Agree” = 5 points. Items 6, 7, 8, and 9 are reverse-scored. The scores for all 10 items are totaled, ranging from 10 to 50. Confidence in Patient Safety Management: This tool consists of 10 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale. For each item, “Strongly Disagree” is scored as 1, “Disagree” as 2, “Neutral” as 3, ‘Agree’ as 4, and “Strongly Agree” as 5. Higher scores indicate greater confidence in patient safety management.
Mahnaz Padash et al. (2025, Iran)	Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H- PEPSS).	Content validity was determined through expert surveys, with the overall content validity index reaching 0.86. Reliability was assessed using internal consistency, yielding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.76 to 0.86.1	Part I assesses patient safety competencies, comprising 27 items. Parts II and III of the H-PEPSS measure aspects related to patient safety education, including items assessing “how broader patient safety issues are addressed in health professional education” (7 items) and items assessing “comfort level discussing patient safety” (4 items).
Mahya Torkaman et al. (2020, Iran)	Modified version of the Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H- PEPSS).	Classroom subscale: α = 0.91 Clinical subscale: α = 0.94 Total scale: α = 0.95	Classroom-based patient safety practices Clinical-based patient safety practices
Lai X Y et al. (2022, China)	Employing qualitative research methods for curriculum effectiveness evaluation. The interview outline primarily includes: understanding of the patient safety course; insights gained from participating in the course; views on the course content design and teaching process; and suggestions for further improving patient safety education.	Not applicable	Primarily based on students’ subjective experiences, this assessment evaluates the course’s impact on their cognition, attitudes, thinking, and professional competence.
Cho D B et al. (2022, South Korea)	Patient Safety Capability Self-Assessment (PSCSE) Tool	Overall Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92, Subscale Cronbach’s alpha values were as follows: Attitude, 0.72; Skills, 0.95; and Knowledge, 0.90.	The revised PSCSE instrument comprises 34 items across three domains: Attitude (14 items), Skill (12 items), and Knowledge (8 items). All items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The Korean version of the PSCSE demonstrated an overall reliability coefficient of 0.91.

Reported outcomes of patient safety education interventions

Patient‑safety education was consistently associated with improvements in knowledge and practical competence, whereas effects on attitudes and sustained cognitive–behavioural change were more heterogeneous and often required targeted pedagogical strategies. Most studies reported statistically significant post‑intervention increases in undergraduate nursing students’ patient‑safety knowledge scores [1, 22, 23, 26, 32]. When multimodal instructional approaches (for example, case‑based learning, problem‑based learning, and virtual‑reality simulation) were employed, knowledge gains were larger; one study reported an increase of up to 46.8% following a blended, technology-enhanced programme [32], compared with smaller gains for more traditional instruction (approximately 25% in a Korean study).

Findings regarding attitudes and safety‑related cognition were mixed. Several studies documented positive shifts: Jones observed a significant reduction in students’ fatalistic belief that “medical errors are inevitable” [26], Gleason and Ahmed reported improvements in systems‑thinking scores [25, 30]; and Cantero‑López reported increased emphasis on inter‑team collaboration [29]. Conversely, other studies detected limited or no overall attitudinal change—Li et al. found that intervention effects were restricted to specific subdomains (knowledge of medical errors and appropriate actions after an error) [34], and Jiang and Mansour reported no significant pre/post differences in attitude measures [1, 28]. These mixed results suggest that attitudinal change may depend on intervention duration, the inclusion of reflective and contextualised clinical experiences, and the use of pedagogies explicitly designed to address safety culture.

Evidence also indicated improvements in clinical competence and confidence. Interventions were associated with enhanced ability to identify and manage common clinical safety hazards (for example, an unactivated oxygen source or a missing patient identification band) [26], and significant increases in self‑reported confidence across multiple safety domains were noted [27, 31]. Such gains were most pronounced when instructional programmes combined simulation, supervised clinical practice, and structured feedback.

Discussion

Implementation modalities of patient safety education

The review shows a wide array of modalities employed in patient safety education for undergraduate nursing students, though their adoption varies significantly. Commonly employed strategies include traditional lectures with audiovisual support, case-based analysis, and scenario-based simulations—ranging from high-fidelity manikins and standardized patients to immersive VR/AR applications. Problem-based learning (PBL), team-based learning (TBL), and technology-enabled tools such as mobile apps, online modules, and gamified platforms are also increasingly utilised. Some programmes integrate interprofessional education (IPE) or reflective practices, such as reflective journals and root-cause analysis (RCA) reports, which have been shown to foster critical and systems thinking and shift the focus from individual blame to systemic error analysis [25, 30]. Despite the recognised importance of teamwork and communication in complex clinical settings [35, 36], genuine IPE—defined as collaborative learning with students or practitioners from other health professions—was implemented in only two of the reviewed studies. This underutilisation represents a missed opportunity to cultivate shared accountability and improve patient-safety outcomes through authentic interprofessional collaboration [37].

Effectiveness and evaluation of patient safety education

The evidence regarding the effects of patient safety education presents a nuanced picture. On one hand, interventions are consistently associated with improvements in knowledge and practical competence. Most studies report improvements in students’ scores on knowledge dimensions, particularly when multiple teaching methods are employed. The literature also demonstrates enhanced clinical competencies, such as improved abilities to identify and manage safety hazards, alongside increased student confidence [1, 22, 23, 26, 32]. On the other hand, findings on attitudinal change and sustained cognitive-behavioral impact are more heterogeneous and less conclusive. While some studies [25, 26, 30] documented positive shifts in safety attitudes and systems thinking, others [1, 28, 34] found limited or no significant overall change, suggesting outcomes may depend on specific pedagogical strategies and intervention depth.

Besides, undertaking this review, we found that current evaluation tools exhibit uneven psychometric performance—some locally developed instruments lacked reported validity and reliability metrics [22, 23], while others demonstrated only moderate reliability [28]. Behavioural assessment was weak: only 35% of instruments incorporated clinical behaviour observation, a far lower proportion than those assessing knowledge or attitudes. The absence of standardisation (for example, knowledge tests ranging from 5 to 20 items) hindered cross‑study comparison [30, 31]. Over 60% of studies used author-developed questionnaires without reporting psychometric validation, raising concerns about reliability and cross-study comparability. Only three studies employed established tools such as the Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H-PEPSS) [29]. Existing evaluation tools were either insufficiently targeted or failed to provide a comprehensive, objective reflection of learning outcomes. At the same time, short‑term assessments were unable to capture long‑term knowledge retention and application.

Multifaceted challenges in implementation

Existing curricula often focus narrowly on traditional topics like medication safety, while largely overlooking emerging domains such as digital health safety and AI-related risks. Furthermore, many programmes lack coherent content sequencing, pedagogical innovation, and the depth required to sustain student engagement and motivation. The development of a specialised and well-trained faculty has been consistently identified as a critical prerequisite for enhancing educational quality [1, 25, 34].

In the design of patient safety education implementation programs, the primary research base is constrained by a predominance of single-center, pre-post test designs without control groups, small samples, and a lack of long-term follow-up [26, 27]. Inadequate reporting of ethical approval and intervention fidelity also compromises the reproducibility and generalizability of findings [31, 33].

Finally, external environmental and resource constraints further limited the fidelity of patient safety education implementation. The complexity of clinical environments impedes the translation of learning into practice, while acute public health events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, disrupted teaching delivery and long-term research planning [29, 30]. Resource shortages, including insufficient trained faculty and equipment compatibility issues, restricted curricular depth and breadth.

Recommendations for future research

Based on the findings of this review, we propose the following comprehensive directions and recommendations. At the level of educational practice, to address identified gaps in curriculum content, it is necessary to advance the evolution of the curriculum system toward a vertically integrated framework and systematically incorporate emerging topics such as digital health security. Given the critical role of interprofessional collaboration in patient safety and its underutilization in current education, strategically integrating authentic interprofessional education (IPE) activities is essential. Concurrently, investing in systematic faculty development programs is fundamental to supporting these curricular and pedagogical transformations and strengthening teaching expertise. Furthermore, priority should be given to developing and adopting a validated, behavior-oriented core assessment toolkit to overcome the limitations of current measurement instruments and enable reliable, cross-institutional outcome evaluation and comparison. To build a more robust evidence base, future research must adopt more rigorous methodologies, including controlled study designs, expanded sample sizes, long-term follow-ups, and standardized reporting of implementation processes and outcomes.

Limitations

The interpretations of this scoping review are subject to certain limitations, which also point to valuable directions for future research. Patient safety is a multidimensional construct (knowledge, skills, attitudes), yet the included studies employed heterogeneous measurement approaches (for example, self‑report questionnaires and simulation‑based assessments), thereby reducing comparability across studies. Therefore, the conclusions drawn in this review should be interpreted with caution within this context. The review was restricted to patient‑safety education for undergraduate nursing students, which constrains the generalisability of findings to other learner groups or professional settings. Many studies utilised cross‑sectional or short‑term pre/post designs and lacked longitudinal follow‑up, preventing evaluation of long‑term knowledge retention and sustained behavioural change. Finally, publication bias is possible. Although there are no language restrictions, the included literature is primarily in English. To address these challenges, subsequent research should prioritize the development and use of standardized, validated assessment tools, adopt longitudinal designs to track the retention of learning, and strive for more inclusive, multilingual literature searches to support a more comprehensive and generalizable evidence base in patient safety education.

Conclusions

This scoping review identified considerable heterogeneity in patient‑safety education for undergraduate nursing students with respect to curricular content, intervention duration, instructional methods, evaluation approaches, and reported outcomes. At this formative stage of curriculum development, substantial challenges persist in integrating patient safety consistently and effectively across nursing programmes. By systematically mapping existing educational practices and highlighting critical stages for knowledge integration, this review addresses a key gap in the literature and offers practical guidance for nursing educators and policy makers. The findings support the development of standardised, context‑sensitive training frameworks, validated multi‑method assessment batteries, and targeted faculty development initiatives. Progress in these areas should improve the translation of undergraduate patient‑safety education into safer clinical practice and contribute to the cultivation of a sustainable patient‑safety culture that benefits both health‑care professionals and patients.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Abbreviations

PRISMA-ScR

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews

CINAHL

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

OSF

Open Science Framework

WHO

World Health Organization

QSEN

Quality and Safety Education for Nurses

H‑PEPSS

Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey

PS

Patient Safety

KAP

Knowledge–Attitude–Practice

IPE

Interprofessional Education

TIDieR

Template for Intervention Description and Replication

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Data collection and analysis were performed by Qingyi Xue and Xin Lu. Xin Lu wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Xin Zhang revised the methodology and updated the literature search during the peer-review process. Cong Chen critically revised the results and discussion sections in response to reviewers’comments. All authors participated in editing and reviewing the manuscript, and all authors approved the final draft.

Funding

None.

Data availability

No new data and materials were generated or analyzed in this study. All data supporting the findings of this study are based on previously published studies, which are cited in the reference list.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.