Adverse events (AEs) cause harm in patients and disturbance for the professionals involved in the event (second victims). This study assessed the impact of AEs in primary care (PC) and hospitals in Spain on second victims. A cross-sectional study was conducted. We carried out a survey based on a random sample of doctors and nurses from PC and hospital settings in Spain. A total of 1087 health professionals responded, 610 from PC and 477 from hospitals. A total of 430 health professionals (39.6%) had informed a patient of an error. Reporting to patients was carried out by those with the strongest safety culture (Odds Ratio –OR- 1.1, 95% Confidence Interval –CI- 1.0-1.2), nurses (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-2.3), those under 50 years of age (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) and primary care staff (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.9). A total of 381 (62.5%, 95% CI 59-66%) and 346 (72.5%, IC95% 69-77%) primary care and hospital health professionals, respectively, reported having gone through the second-victim experience, either directly or through a colleague, in the previous 5 years. The emotional responses were: feelings of guilt (521, 58.8%), anxiety (426, 49.6%), re-living the event (360, 42.2%), tiredness (341, 39.4%), insomnia (317, 38.0%) and persistent feelings of insecurity (284, 32.8%). In doctors, the most common responses were: feelings of guilt (OR 0.7 IC95% 0.6-0.8), re-living the event (OR 0.7, IC95% o.6-0.8), and anxiety (OR 0.8, IC95% 0.6-0.9), while nurses showed greater solidarity in terms of supporting the second victim, in both PC (p = 0.019) and hospital (p = 0.019) settings. Adverse events cause guilt, anxiety, and loss of confidence in health professionals. Most are involved in such events as second victims at least once in their careers. They rarely receive any training or education on coping strategies for this phenomenon.

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. 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). 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). 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.

La 74ª Asamblea Mundial de la Salud aprobó en mayo del 2021 el «Plan de acción mundial para la seguridad del paciente 2021-2030» con el fin de potenciar la seguridad de este como un componente esencial en el diseño, los procedimientos y la evaluación del desempeño de los sistemas de salud de todo el mundo.

Background: COVID-19 became a major public health concern in March 2020. Due to the high rate of hospitalizations for COVID-19 in a short time, health care workers and other involved staff are subjected to a large workload and high emotional distress. Objective: The objective of this study is to develop a digital tool to provide support resources that might prevent and consider acute stress reactions in health care workers and other support staff due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The contents of the digital platform were created through an evidence-based review and consensus conference. The website was built using the Google Blogger tool. The Android version of the app was developed in the Java and XML languages using Android Studio version 3.6, and the iOS version was developed in the Swift language using Xcode version 11.5. The app was evaluated externally by the Andalusian Agency for Healthcare Quality. Results: We detected the needs and pressing situations of frontline health care workers, and then, we proposed a serial of recommendations and support resources to address them. These resources were redesigned using the feedback received. A website in three different languages (Spanish, English, and Portuguese) and a mobile app were developed with these contents, and the AppSaludable Quality Seal was granted to the app. A specific self-report scale to measure acute stress and additional tools were included to support the health care workforce. This instrument has been used in several Latin American countries and has been adapted considering cultural differences. The resources section of the website was the most visited with 18,516 out of 68,913 (26.9%) visits, and the “Self-Report Acute Stress Scale” was the most visited resource with 6468 out of 18,516 (34.9%) visits. Conclusions: The Be + against COVID platform (website and app) was developed and launched to offer a pool of recommendations and support resources, which were specifically designed to protect the psychological well-being and the work morale of health care workers. This is an original initiative different from the usual psychological assistance hotlines.

Background: Knowledge about safety culture improves patient safety (PS) in health-care organizations. The first contact a patient has with health care occurs at the primary level. We conducted a survey to measure patient safety culture (PSC) among primary care professionals (PCPs) of health centres (HCs) in Spain and analyzed PS dimensions that influence PSC. Methods: We used Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture translated and validated into Spanish to conduct a cross-sectional anonymous postal survey. We randomly selected a sample of 8378 PCPs at 289 HCs operated by 17 Regional Health Services. Statistical analysis was performed on sociodemographic variables, survey items, PS dimensions and a patient safety synthetic index (PSSI), calculated as average score of the items per dimension, to identify potential predictors of PSC. We used AHRQ data to conduct international comparison. Results: A total of 4344 PCPs completed the questionnaire. The response rate was 55.69%. Forty-two percent were general practitioners, 34.9% nurses, 18% administrative staff and 4.9% other professionals. The highest scoring dimension was ‘PS and quality issues’ 4.18 (4.1–4.20) ‘Work pressure and pace’ was the lowest scored dimension with 2.76 (2.74–2.79). Professionals over 55 years, with managerial responsibilities, women, nurses and administrative staff, had better PSSI scores. Professionals with more than 1500 patients and working for more than 11 years at primary care had lower PSSI scores. Conclusions: This is the first national study to measure PSC in primary care in Spain. Results may reflect on-going efforts to build a strong PSC. Further research into its association with safety outcomes and patients’ perceptions is required.

[corrected] To validate a tool to measure patient safety culture in Spanish primary care professionals. Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture (MOSPSC), from the Agency for Healthcare and Research in Quality (AHRQ). The process has been performed in five steps: original version traslation, conceptual equivalence evaluation, acceptability and viability assessment, content validity and questionnaire test and response analysis and psichometric properties assessment. Primary care. 185 Primary care professionals from different Spanish regions represented the sample test. Frecuency, response pattern and discrimination power of each item. Cronbach's alpha coefficient and dimensions obtained through factor analysis. 17, 8% of respondents answered all the items and 28, 7% of them did not answer, or answered the option "Don't know/Does not apply", to one to four items. All the sentences, with only one exception, present discrimination capacity. Cronbach's alpha coefficient results 0,96 and information is sumarized in 15 factors obtaining the same items in 7 of the total 12 factors in the original questionnaire. Traslated, adapted, extended and validated AHRQ questionnaire is, in this setting, a reliable and useful instrument and it must be used for international comparisons.