Type of recognized patient hazard by case and chart.

F1: One diagnostic test for the main problem is missing, F2: One incidental actionable diagnostic finding is present, F3: One medication is contraindicated, F4: One medication has the incorrect dosage, F5 One indicated medication is missing, F6 One medication has adverse effects, F7: One medication is not indicated, F8: One infectious complication is present, F9: The monitoring for the main problem is incomplete, F10: Diet/fluid management is incorrect, F 11 The documentation is incomplete, F12 One risk situation is present for an unauthorized medication.</p

Overall recognition of patient hazards when presented in different charts (electronic or paper).

There was no measurable improvement in the second case despite an extensive briefing after the first case. *p < 0.05 for statistical equivalence.</p

Number of recognized patient hazards.

(a) Diabetes mellitus case. (b) Upper gastrointestinal bleeding case. Box plots (Tukey whiskers) for presentation as electronic chart or paper chart. *p < 0.05 for statistical equivalence.</p

Example of an assessment case with standardized patient hazards.

Example of an assessment case with standardized patient hazards.</p

Demographic data of students who submitted their notes on the standardized patient charts for evaluation.

Demographic data of students who submitted their notes on the standardized patient charts for evaluation.</p

Randomization of study participants.

E, electronic chart; P, paper chart; DM, diabetes mellitus case; UGI upper gastrointestinal bleeding case.</p

Numbers of patient hazards recognized by fifth-year medical students.

(a) Transitioning from a paper chart to another case presented in an electronic chart. (b) Transitioning from an electronic chart to another case presented in a paper chart. *p < 0.05 for statistical equivalence.</p

Flow-chart of the study design.

<p>Flow-chart of the study design.</p

Characteristics of the patients seen by supervised medical students and emergency department physicians.

<p>P values were calculated using the Wilcoxon-test for numeric data and the Fisher's exact test for non-numeric data. Diagnostic accuracy: congruence between working diagnosis from the Emergency department and final diagnosis from the discharge letter. PCCL: patient comorbidity complexity level from the national Diagnosis related Group system. Expenditures on diagnostic procedures: calculated with the official national medical fee schedule for hospitals.</p

Study design.

<p>R = Randomization of 123 5^th year medical students, O = Observation (review of a fictional patient chart with twelve common patient hazards), X = Intervention (training on patient chart review and patient safety), C = Control-Intervention (ultrasound and Skills lab-training).</p