Search

Background: The second victim phenomenon refers to the emotional trauma healthcare professionals experience following adverse events (AEs) in patient care, which can compromise their ability to provide safe care. This issue has significant implications for patient safety, with AEs leading to substantial human and economic costs. Analysis: Current evidence indicates that AEs often result from systemic failures, profoundly affecting healthcare workers. While patient safety initiatives are in place, the psychological impact on healthcare professionals remains inadequately addressed. The European Researchers' Network Working on Second Victims (ERNST) emphasizes the need to support these professionals through peer support programs, systemic changes, and a shift toward a just culture in healthcare settings. Policy Options: Key options include implementing peer support programs, revising the legal framework to decriminalize honest errors, and promoting just culture principles. These initiatives aim to mitigate the second victim phenomenon, enhance patient safety, and reduce healthcare costs. Conclusion: Addressing the second victim phenomenon is essential for ensuring patient safety. By implementing supportive policies and fostering a just culture, healthcare systems can better manage the repercussions of AEs and support the wellbeing of healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To summarize the knowledge about the aftermath of adverse events (AEs) and develop a recommendation set to reduce their negative impact in patients, health professionals and organizations in contexts where there is no previous experiences and apology laws are not present.Data Sources: Review studies published between 2000 and 2015, institutional websites and experts' opinions on patient safety.Study Selection: Studies published and websites on open disclosure, and the second and third victims' phenomenon. Four Focus Groups participating 27 healthcare professionals.Data Extraction: Study characteristic and outcome data were abstracted by two authors and reviewed by the research team.Results Of Data Synthesis: Fourteen publications and 16 websites were reviewed. The recommendations were structured around eight areas: (i) safety and organizational policies, (ii) patient care, (iii) proactive approach to preventing reoccurrence, (iv) supporting the clinician and healthcare team, (v) activation of resources to provide an appropriate response, (vi) informing patients and/or family members, (vii) incidents' analysis and (viii) protecting the reputation of health professionals and the organization.Conclusion: Recommendations preventing aftermath of AEs have been identified. These have been designed for the hospital and the primary care settings; to cope with patient's emotions and for tacking the impact of AE in the second victim's colleagues. Its systematic use should help for the establishment of organizational action plans after an AE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assure the application, in our primary care health district, of the World Health Organisation and Spanish Ebola virus disease (EVD) guidelines, and to identify and resolve gaps, in order to protect professionals from the risks associated with attending to patients with Ebola.Materials and Methods: A checklist was drawn up and an audit procedure of the structural, functional and operational conditions was designed for managing a self-presenting patient suspected with EVD in general practice. This audit was applied twice (before and after assessment) in 9 health centres of a health district in Spain. The checklist was structured according to 9 categories (51 elements in total). This tool was designed to avoid errors in the management of EVD patients that are considered very serious in view of their potential consequences.Results: Of the 51 elements on the checklist, 7-26 (14-51%) required direct intervention to rectify deficits in the first audit. The following elements requiring improvement were identified: the incorporation of memory aids to ensure the correct application of the EVD protocol, defining what information should be provided to the patient and (where applicable) anyone accompanying them as well as incorporating advice on how to deal with any individuals with whom they might have come into contact. A second audit assured the adequacy of the proposed solutions.Conclusion: In this study, the tool achieved the successful application of EVD protocol, assuring that primary care centres were able to handle an Ebola suspect patient safely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adverse events (AE) are also the cause of suffering in health professionals involved. This study was designed to identify and analyse organization-level strategies adopted in both primary care and hospitals in Spain to address the impact of serious AE on second and third victims. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in healthcare organizations assessing: safety culture; health organization crisis management plans for serious AE; actions planned to ensure transparency in communication with patients (and relatives) who experience an AE; support for second victims; and protective measures to safeguard the institution's reputation (the third victim). Results: A total of 406 managers and patient safety coordinators replied to the survey. Deficient provision of support for second victims was acknowledged by 71 and 61 % of the participants from hospitals and primary care respectively; these respondents reported there was no support protocol for second victims in place in their organizations. Regarding third victim initiatives, 35 % of hospital and 43 % of primary care professionals indicated no crisis management plan for serious AE existed in their organization, and in the case of primary care, there was no crisis committee in 34 % of cases. The degree of implementation of second and third victim support interventions was perceived to be greater in hospitals (mean 14.1, SD 3.5) than in primary care (mean 11.8, SD 3.1) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Many Spanish health organizations do not have a second and third victim support or a crisis management plan in place to respond to serious AEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adverse events (incidents that harm a patient) can also produce emotional hardship for the professionals involved (second victims). Although a few international pioneering programs exist that aim to facilitate the recovery of the second victim, there are no known initiatives that aim to raise awareness in the professional community about this issue and prevent the situation from worsening.Objective: The aim of this study was to design and evaluate an online program directed at frontline hospital and primary care health professionals that raises awareness and provides information about the second victim phenomenon.Methods: The design of the Mitigating Impact in Second Victims (MISE) online program was based on a literature review, and its contents were selected by a group of 15 experts on patient safety with experience in both clinical and academic settings. The website hosting MISE was subjected to an accreditation process by an external quality agency that specializes in evaluating health websites. The MISE structure and content were evaluated by 26 patient safety managers at hospitals and within primary care in addition to 266 frontline health care professionals who followed the program, taking into account its comprehension, usefulness of the information, and general adequacy. Finally, the amount of knowledge gained from the program was assessed with three objective measures (pre- and posttest design).Results: The website earned Advanced Accreditation for health websites after fulfilling required standards. The comprehension and practical value of the MISE content were positively assessed by 88% (23/26) and 92% (24/26) of patient safety managers, respectively. MISE was positively evaluated by health care professionals, who awarded it 8.8 points out of a maximum 10. Users who finished MISE improved their knowledge on patient safety terminology, prevalence and impact of adverse events and clinical errors, second victim support models, and recommended actions following a severe adverse event (P<.001).Conclusions: The MISE program differs from existing intervention initiatives by its preventive nature in relation to the second victim phenomenon. Its online nature makes it an easily accessible tool for the professional community. This program has shown to increase user's knowledge on this issue and it helps them correct their approach. Furthermore, it is one of the first initiatives to attempt to bring the second victim phenomenon closer to primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]