Background: Research internationally shows that nursing students find dosage calculation difficult. Identifying the specific aspects of dose calculation procedures that are most commonly associated with errors would enable teaching to be targeted where it is most needed, thus improving students’ calculation skills. The aim of this study was to analyze where specifically nursing students make mistakes when calculating drug doses. Method: Retrospective analysis of written examination papers including dosage calculation exercises from years 1, 2, and 3 of a nursing degree program. Exercises were analyzed for errors in relation to 23 agreed categories reflecting different kinds of calculation or steps in the calculation process. We conducted a descriptive and bivariate analysis of results, examining the relationship between the presence of errors and the proportion of correct and incorrect final answers. Results: A total of 285 exam papers including 1034 calculation exercises were reviewed. After excluding those that had been left blank, a total of 863 exercises were analyzed in detail. A correct answer was given in 455 exercises (52.7%), although this varied enormously depending on the type of exercise: 89.2% of basic dose calculations were correct, compared with just 2.9% of those involving consideration of maximum concentration. The most common errors were related to unit conversion, more complex concepts such as maximum concentration and minimum dilution, or failure to contextualize the answer to the clinical case. Other frequent errors involved not extracting the key information from the question, not including the units when giving their answer, and not understanding the question. In general, fewer errors in basic dose calculations were made by students at later stages of the degree program. Conclusions: Students struggle with more complex dose calculations. The main errors detected were related to understanding the task and the key concepts involved, as well as not following the correct steps when solving the problem.

Educational efficiency is the predetermining factor for increasing the survival rate of patients with cardiac arrest. Virtual reality (VR) simulation could help to improve the skills of those undergoing basic life support–automated external defibrillation (BLS–AED) training. Our purpose was to evaluate whether BLS–AED with virtual reality improves the skills and satisfaction of students enrolled in in-person training after completing the course and their retention of those skills 6 months later. This was an experimental study of first-year university students from a school of health sciences. We compared traditional training (control group—CG) with virtual reality simulation (experimental group—EG). The students were evaluated using a simulated case with three validated instruments after the completion of training and at 6 months. A total of 241 students participated in the study. After the training period, there were no statistically significant differences in knowledge evaluation or in practical skills when assessed using a feedback mannequin. Statistically significant results on defibrillation were poorer in the EG evaluated by the instructor. Retention at 6 months decreased significantly in both groups. The results of the teaching methodology using VR were similar to those obtained through traditional methodology: there was an increase in skills after training, and their retention decreased over time. Defibrillation results were better after traditional learning.