INTRODUCTION: After an adverse event, not only patients and family members but also health-care professionals involved in the event become victims. More than 50% of all health-care professionals suffer emotionally and professionally after being involved in an adverse event. Support is needed for these "second victims" to prevent a further negative impact on patient care. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence and content of organizational‑level support systems for health-care professionals involved in an adverse event. METHODS: A survey was sent to 109 Belgian hospitals regarding 2 aspects: first, the availability of a protocol for supporting second victims; and, second, the presence of a contact person in the organization to provide support. A total of 59 hospitals participated in the study. Hospitals were asked to submit their protocols for providing support to second victims. A content analysis based on an Institute for Healthcare Improvement's white paper and the Scott Model was performed to evaluate the protocols. RESULTS: Thirty organizations had a systematic plan to support second victims. Twelve percent could not identify a contact person. The chief nursing officer was seen as one of the main contact people when something went wrong. In terms of the quality of the protocols, only a minority followed part of the international resources. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of hospitals are somewhat prepared to provide support for health-care professionals. Management should take a leadership role in establishing support protocols for their health-care professionals in the aftermath of an adverse event.
INTRODUCTION: After an adverse event, not only patients and family members but also health-care professionals involved in the event become victims. More than 50% of all health-care professionals suffer emotionally and professionally after being involved in an adverse event. Support is needed for these "second victims" to prevent a further negative impact on patient care. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence and content of organizational‑level support systems for health-care professionals involved in an adverse event. METHODS: A survey was sent to 109 Belgian hospitals regarding 2 aspects: first, the availability of a protocol for supporting second victims; and, second, the presence of a contact person in the organization to provide support. A total of 59 hospitals participated in the study. Hospitals were asked to submit their protocols for providing support to second victims. A content analysis based on an Institute for Healthcare Improvement's white paper and the Scott Model was performed to evaluate the protocols. RESULTS: Thirty organizations had a systematic plan to support second victims. Twelve percent could not identify a contact person. The chief nursing officer was seen as one of the main contact people when something went wrong. In terms of the quality of the protocols, only a minority followed part of the international resources. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of hospitals are somewhat prepared to provide support for health-care professionals. Management should take a leadership role in establishing support protocols for their health-care professionals in the aftermath of an adverse event.
Authors: Eva Van Gerven; Luk Bruyneel; Massimiliano Panella; Martin Euwema; Walter Sermeus; Kris Vanhaecht Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: José Joaquín Mira; Irene Carrillo; Mercedes Guilabert; Susana Lorenzo; Pastora Pérez-Pérez; Carmen Silvestre; Lena Ferrús Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Irene Carrillo; José Joaquín Mira; Maria Asuncion Vicente; Cesar Fernandez; Mercedes Guilabert; Lena Ferrús; Elena Zavala; Carmen Silvestre; Pastora Pérez-Pérez Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 5.428