Objectives: Despite growing interest in the second-victim phenomenon and greater awareness of its consequences, there has not been a meta-analysis quantifying the negative impact of adverse events on providers involved in adverse events. This study systematically reviewed the types and prevalence of psychological and psychosomatic symptoms among second victims. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of nine electronic databases up to February 2017, without restrictions to publication date or language, examining also additional sources (e.g., gray literature, volumes of journals). Two reviewers performed the search, selection process, quality assessment, data extraction, and synthesis. We resolved disagreements by consensus and/or involving a third reviewer. Quantitative studies on the prevalence of psychological and psychosomatic symptoms of second victims were eligible for inclusion. We used random effects modeling to calculate the overall prevalence rates and the I ² statistic. Results: Of 7210 records retrieved, 98 potentially relevant studies were identified. Full-text evaluation led to a final selection of 18 studies, based on the reports of 11,649 healthcare providers involved in adverse events. The most prevalent symptoms were troubling memories (81%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 46–95), anxiety/concern (76%, 95% CI = 33–95), anger toward themselves (75%, 95% CI = 59–86), regret/remorse (72%, 95% CI = 62–81), distress (70%, 95% CI = 60–79), fear of future errors (56%, 95% CI = 34–75), embarrassment (52%, 95% CI = 31–72), guilt (51%, 95% CI = 41–62), and sleeping difficulties (35%, 95% CI = 22–51). Conclusions: Second victims report a high prevalence and wide range of psychological symptoms. More than two-thirds of providers reported troubling memories, anxiety, anger, remorse, and distress. Preventive and therapeutic programs should aim to decrease second victims’ emotional distress.

In light of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and potential future infectious disease outbreaks, a comprehensive understanding of the negative effects of epidemics and pandemics on healthcare workers’ mental health could inform appropriate support interventions. Thus, we aimed to synthesize and quantify the psychological and psychosomatic symptoms among frontline medical staff. We searched four databases up to March 19, 2020 and additional literature, with daily search alerts set up until October 26, 2020. Studies reporting psychological and/or psychosomatic symptoms of healthcare workers caring for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome, H1N1, Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome, or COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently conducted the search, study selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis and involved a third reviewer in case of disagreement. We used random effects modeling to estimate the overall prevalence rates of psychological/psychosomatic symptoms and the I² statistic. We included 86 studies, reporting data from 75,991 participants. Frontline staff showed a wide range of symptoms, including concern about transmitting the virus to the family (60.39%, 95% CI 42.53–76.96), perceived stress (56.77%, 95% CI 34.21–77.95), concerns about own health (45.97%, 95% CI 31.08–61.23), sleeping difficulties (39.88%, 95% CI 27.70–52.72), burnout (31.81%, 95% CI 13.32–53.89), symptoms of depression (25.72%, 95% CI 18.34–33.86), symptoms of anxiety (25.36%, 95% CI 17.90–33.64), symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (24.51%, 95% CI 18.16–31.46), mental health issues (23.11%, 95% CI 15.98–31.10), and symptoms of somatization (14.68%, 95% CI 10.67–19.18). We found consistent evidence for the pervasive and profound impact of large-scale outbreaks on the mental health of frontline healthcare workers. As the CO­VID-19 crisis continues to unfold, guaranteeing easy access to support structures for the entire healthcare workforce is vitally important.

Given the negative impact of adverse events on the wellbeing of healthcare providers, easy access to psychological support is crucial. We aimed to describe the types of support resources available in healthcare organizations, their benefits for second victims, peer supporters’ experiences, and implementation challenges. We also explored how these resources incorporate aspects of Safety I and Safety II. We searched six databases up to 19 December 2019 and additional literature, including weekly search alerts until 21 January 2021. Two reviewers independently performed all methodological steps (search, selection, quality assessment, data extraction, formal narrative synthesis). The 16 included studies described 12 second victim support resources, implemented between 2006 and 2017. Preliminary data indicated beneficial effects not only for the affected staff but also for the peer responders who considered their role to be challenging but gratifying. Challenges during program implementation included persistent blame culture, limited awareness of program availability, and lack of financial resources. Common goals of the support programs (e.g., fostering coping strategies, promoting individual resilience) are consistent with Safety II and may promote system resilience. Investing in second victim support structures should be a top priority for healthcare institutions adopting a systemic approach to safety and striving for just culture.

Objectives: Despite the critical need to understand the diverse responses by second victims to adverse events, there has not been a meta-analysis examining coping by second victims. We aimed to analyze the coping strategies applied by second victims in the aftermath of adverse events.Methods: We performed a systematic search of nine electronic databases up to October 2018 and screened additional sources, such as gray databases. Two independent reviewers conducted the search, selection process, quality appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis. In case of dissent, a third reviewer was involved to reach consensus. Quantitative studies of the frequency with which coping strategies were applied by second victims were eligible for inclusion. We calculated the overall frequency of coping strategies andI²statistic using random effects modeling.Results: Of 10,705 records retrieved, 111 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 14 studies eventually included. The five most frequent coping strategies wereChanging work attitude(89%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 80–94), Following policies and guidelines more accurately and closely(89%, 95% CI = 54–98), Paying more attention to detail(89%, 95% CI = 78–94) (task oriented),Problem-solving/concrete action plan(77%, 95% CI = 59–89) (task oriented), andCriticizing or lecturing oneself(74%, 95% CI = 47–90) (emotion oriented).Conclusions: Second victims frequently used task- and emotion-oriented coping strategies and, to a lesser degree, avoidance-oriented strategies. To better support second victims and ensure patient safety, coping strategies should be evaluated considering the positive and negative effects on the clinician’s personal and professional well-being, relationships with patients, and the quality and safety of healthcare.