Abstract Background: One of the common side effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer is oral mucositis. This painful complication restricts the ability to eat and drink and increases the risk of oral infections. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of doxepin oral rinse 0.5% in comparison with persica mouthwash on reducing the pain of oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer after radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Methods: This clinical trial was performed on 56 patients admitted in the oncology ward of Shahid Sadoughi Hospital and Shahid Ramezanzadeh radiotherapy center in Yazd, who received more than 45 gray of radiation and had mucositis and their pain score was more than 4 on the basis of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Patients were randomly divided into two groups of persica and doxepin 0.5%. The data collection tool was a questionnaire including visual analogue scale for pain, taste satisfaction and possible complications. Data were analyzed by using SPSS19 software and Chi-square test. Results: There was no significant difference between the mean score of pain in doxepin and persica groups 5,15,30, 120,240 minutes and 24 hours after taking the mouthwash; just in the doxepin group, the mean of pain reduction 60 minute after taking the mouthwash was higher than persica group (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference between the mean score of burning sensation in doxepin and persica groups30,60,120,240 minutes and 24 hours after taking the mouthwash; just in the pesica group, the mean of burning sensation reduction 5,15minutes after taking the mouthwash was lower than doxepin group The level of taste satisfaction and drowsiness in the doxepin group was significantly higher than persica group. (P >0.05) Conclusion: Persica mouthwash, like doxepin mouthwash, was effective in reducing the mucositis pain in patients and just in the doxepin group reduction in pain after 60 minutes was higher than perisca group

Introduction: The medical error report is known as the basis for patient safety measures. To increase the frequency of error reporting, it is important to identify selection barriers and remove them over time. We aimed to review the barriers and facilities of medical errors reporting. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted on the English and Persian documents published throughout a 10-year period (2010–2020) in PubMed/Medline, Science Direct, Web of Science and Google scholar databases. All documents were assessed for eligibility by titles or abstracts according to the search strategy. The screening process was conducted by two independent authors. The selected articles were checked regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: In total, 231 relevant studies were searched in 2010–2020, and after evaluating the full text of the article, 28 full-text articles were opted in accordance with the eligibility criteria, and finally, 22 full-text articles were reviewed systematically. According to the studies that were analysed, the most common obstacle was the reporting fear of individual and legal charges among health-care personnel. The majority of clinical staff suggested using anonymous reporting systems, modifying the 'blame' culture and the unsuitable behaviour of managers to prevent reporting barriers. Conclusion: Based on the up-to-date information on barriers to medical error reporting by the staff, suggestions are made to address the barriers. Efforts to create an effective reporting system will be appropriate for patient care. Furthermore, the correct behaviour of managers will be very effective in dealing with employees' errors and training.