Robyn E Finney1, Vanessa E Torbenson2, Kirsten A Riggan3, Amy L Weaver4, Margaret E Long2, Megan A Allyse2,3, Enid Y Rivera-Chiauzzi2. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
AIM (S): To investigate second victim experiences and supportive resources for nurses in obstetrics and gynaecology. BACKGROUND: Nurses are at risk of developing second victim experiences after exposure to work related events. METHODS: Nurses at a single institution were invited to participate in an anonymous survey that included the validated Second Victim Experience and Support Tool to assess symptoms related to second victim experiences and current and desired supportive resources. RESULTS: Of 310 nurses, 115 (37.1%) completed the survey; 74.8% had not heard of the term 'second victim'. Overall, 47.8% reported feeling like a second victim during their career and 19.1% over the previous 12 months. As a result of a second victim experience, 18.4% experienced psychological distress, 14.3% turnover intentions, 13.0% decreased professional self-efficacy, and 12.2% felt that institutional support was poor. Both clinical and non-clinical events were reported as possible triggers for second victim experiences. Peer support was the most desired form of support as reported by 95.5%. CONCLUSION(S): Nurses in obstetrics and gynaecology face clinical and non-clinical situations that lead to potential second victim experiences. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: The second victim experiences of nurses should be acknowledged, and resources should be implemented to navigate it. Educational opportunities and peer supportive interventions specific to second victim experiences should be encouraged.
AIM (S): To investigate second victim experiences and supportive resources for nurses in obstetrics and gynaecology. BACKGROUND: Nurses are at risk of developing second victim experiences after exposure to work related events. METHODS: Nurses at a single institution were invited to participate in an anonymous survey that included the validated Second Victim Experience and Support Tool to assess symptoms related to second victim experiences and current and desired supportive resources. RESULTS: Of 310 nurses, 115 (37.1%) completed the survey; 74.8% had not heard of the term 'second victim'. Overall, 47.8% reported feeling like a second victim during their career and 19.1% over the previous 12 months. As a result of a second victim experience, 18.4% experienced psychological distress, 14.3% turnover intentions, 13.0% decreased professional self-efficacy, and 12.2% felt that institutional support was poor. Both clinical and non-clinical events were reported as possible triggers for second victim experiences. Peer support was the most desired form of support as reported by 95.5%. CONCLUSION(S): Nurses in obstetrics and gynaecology face clinical and non-clinical situations that lead to potential second victim experiences. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: The second victim experiences of nurses should be acknowledged, and resources should be implemented to navigate it. Educational opportunities and peer supportive interventions specific to second victim experiences should be encouraged.
Authors: Yue-Yung Hu; Megan L Fix; Nathanael D Hevelone; Stuart R Lipsitz; Caprice C Greenberg; Joel S Weissman; Jo Shapiro Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2011-11-21
Authors: Michael A Lane; Brianne M Newman; Mary Z Taylor; Meg OʼNeill; Chiara Ghetti; Robin M Woltman; Amy D Waterman Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.844
Authors: Deborah Seys; Susan Scott; Albert Wu; Eva Van Gerven; Arthur Vleugels; Martin Euwema; Massimiliano Panella; James Conway; Walter Sermeus; Kris Vanhaecht Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Katja Schrøder; Pia Veldt Larsen; Jan Stener Jørgensen; Jacob V B Hjelmborg; Ronald F Lamont; Niels Christian Hvidt Journal: Midwifery Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 2.372
Authors: Jonathan D Burlison; Susan D Scott; Emily K Browne; Sierra G Thompson; James M Hoffman Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.844
Authors: Jonathan D Burlison; Rebecca R Quillivan; Susan D Scott; Sherry Johnson; James M Hoffman Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Enid Y Rivera-Chiauzzi; Heather A Smith; Tanya Moore-Murray; Colleen Lee; Dena Goffman; Peter S Bernstein; Cynthia Chazotte Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 2.844
Authors: Irene Santana-Domínguez; Héctor González-De La Torre; José Verdú-Soriano; Miriam Berenguer-Pérez; Juan José Suárez-Sánchez; Alicia Martín-Martínez Journal: Nurs Open Date: 2022-05-28