Background: Second victim phenomena (SVP) are critical to workplace and patient safety, and epidemiological data are limited to investigate the causes and impact on German health care. We investigated SVP in German nurses regarding prevalence, causes, and predisposition compared to a preceding study on German physicians (Second Victims in Deutschland/SeViD-I). Methods: We conducted a nationwide anonymous cross-sectional online study in 2020 using a modified SeViD questionnaire including the BFI-10 (personality traits). Statistical analysis was conducted using chi² tests and binary logistic regression models. Results: Of 332 nurses, 60% reported to experience SVP at least once a working lifetime, with a 12-month prevalence among SVP of 49%. Of the nurses, 24% reported recovery times of more than 1 year. In contrast to physicians from SeViD-I, a main cause for becoming a second victim was aggressive behavior by patients. High neuroticism values, higher age, and medium work life experience, but neither gender nor workplace position, were predisposing for SVP. Like SeViD-I, nurses reported demand for an institutional response in cases of SVP. Conclusions: SVP is common among German nurses and comprises other causes and a different course than in physicians. Further research should concentrate on specific prevention strategies, e.g., profession- and workplace-based educational programs.

Background: Patient care in the prehospital emergency setting is error-prone. Wu’s publications on the second victim syndrome made very clear that medical errors may lead to severe emotional injury on the caregiver’s part. So far, little is known about the extent of the problem within the field of prehospital emergency care. Our study aimed at identifying the prevalence of the Second Victim Phenomenon among Emergency Medical Services (EMS) physicians in Germany. Methods: Web-based distribution of the SeViD questionnaire among n = 12.000 members of the German Prehospital Emergency Physician Association (BAND) to assess general experience, symptoms and support strategies associated with the Second Victim Phenomenon. Results: In total, 401 participants fully completed the survey, 69.1% were male and the majority (91.2%) were board-certified in prehospital emergency medicine. The median length of experience in this field of medicine was 11 years. Out of 401 participants, 213 (53.1%) had experienced at least one second victim incident. Self-perceived time to full recovery was up to one month according to 57.7% (123) and more than one month to 31.0% (66) of the participants. A total of 11.3% (24) had not fully recovered by the time of the survey. Overall, 12-month prevalence was 13.7% (55/401). The COVID-19 pandemic had little effect on SVP prevalence within this specific sample. Conclusions: Our data indicate that the Second Victim Phenomenon is very frequent among prehospital emergency physicians in Germany. However, four out of ten caregivers affected did not seek or receive any assistance in coping with this stressful situation. One out of nine respondents had not yet fully recovered by the time of the survey. Effective support networks, e.g., easy access to psychological and legal counseling as well as the opportunity to discuss ethical issues, are urgently required in order to prevent employees from further harm, to keep healthcare professionals from leaving this field of medical care and to maintain a high level of system safety and well-being of subsequent patients.

Background: Paediatric emergencies are challenging for healthcare workers, first aiders, and parents waiting for emergency medical services to arrive. With the expected rise of virtual assistants, people will likely seek help from such digital AI tools, especially in regions lacking emergency medical services. Large Language Models like ChatGPT proved effective in providing health-related information and are competent in medical exams but are questioned regarding patient safety. Currently, there is no information on ChatGPT’s performance in supporting parents in paediatric emergencies requiring help from emergency medical services. This study aimed to test 20 paediatric and two basic life support case vignettes for ChatGPT and GPT-4 performance and safety in children.Methods: We provided the cases three times each to two models, ChatGPT and GPT-4, and assessed the diagnostic accuracy, emergency call advice, and the validity of advice given to parents.Results: Both models recognized the emergency in the cases, except for septic shock and pulmonary embolism, and identified the correct diagnosis in 94%. However, ChatGPT/GPT-4 reliably advised to call emergency services only in 12 of 22 cases (54%), gave correct first aid instructions in 9 cases (45%) and incorrectly advised advanced life support techniques to parents in 3 of 22 cases (13.6%).Conclusion: Considering these results of the recent ChatGPT versions, the validity, reliability and thus safety of ChatGPT/GPT-4 as an emergency support tool is questionable. However, whether humans would perform better in the same situation is uncertain. Moreover, other studies have shown that human emergency call operators are also inaccurate, partly with worse performance than ChatGPT/GPT-4 in our study. However, one of the main limitations of the study is that we used prototypical cases, and the management may differ from urban to rural areas and between different countries, indicating the need for further evaluation of the context sensitivity and adaptability of the model. Nevertheless, ChatGPT and the new versions under development may be promising tools for assisting lay first responders, operators, and professionals in diagnosing a paediatric emergency.Trial registration: Not applicable.

Introduction: Comparable to second victim phenomenon (SVP), moral injury (MI) affects health professionals (HP) working in stressful environments. Information on how MI and SVP intercorrelate and their part in a psychological trauma complex is limited. We tested and validated a German version of the Moral Injury Symptom and Support Scale for Health Professionals (G-MISS-HP) instrument, screening for MI and correlated it with the recently developed German version of the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (G-SVESTR) instrument, testing for SVP. Methods: After translating Moral Injury Symptom and Support Scale for Health Professionals (MISS-HP), we conducted a cross-sectional online survey providing G-MISS-HP and G-SVEST-R to HP. Statistics included Pearson’s interitem correlation, reliability analysis, principal axis factoring and principal components analysis with Promax rotation, confirmatory factor and ROC analyses. Results: A total of 244 persons responded, of whom 156 completed the survey (33% nurses, 16% physicians, 9% geriatric nurses, 7.1% speech and language therapists). Interitem and corrected item-scale correlations did not measure for one item sufficiently. It was, therefore, excluded from further analyses. The nine-item score revealed good reliability (Guttman’s lambda 2 = 0.80; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79). Factor validity was demonstrated, indicating that a three-factor model from the original study might better represent the data compared with our two-factor model. Positive correlations between G-MISS-HP and G-SVESTR subscales demonstrated convergent validity. ROC revealed sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 63% for G-MISS-HP using a nine-item scale with cutoff value of 28.5 points. Positive and negative predictive values were 62% and 69%, respectively. Subgroup analyses did not reveal any differences. Conclusion: G-MISS-HP with nine items is a valid and reliable testing instrument for moral injury. However, strong intercorrelations of MI and SVP indicate the need for further research on the distinction of these phenomena.

Introduction: The second victim phenomenon that occurs after critical events poses a serious factor for patient and workplace safety. These experiences can be evaluated using the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST), originally in English, or the translated and validated Korean or Chinese versions. In 2020, a revised version was published (SVESTR) with the addition of resilience items. The aim of this study is the validation of the German version, the G-SVESTR, in a multiprofessional setting. Methods: The G-SVESTR questionnaire was designed according to World Health Organization recommendations. This entails translation, test for face validity, back translation, pretest, expert panel evaluation, and a test in a large population for validity and reliability. We provided an anonymous online questionnaire to physicians, nurses, paramedics, medical assistants, and physician assistants to test our developed tool. Statistics were accomplished using XL-Stats. Results: Altogether, 72% (306 of 428) of the participants completed the survey. The mean time for completion was 9.4 minutes. Physician assistants and medical assistants were significantly younger than other respondents. The analysis revealed satisfactory reliability (Cronbach α = 0.844). A principal component analysis showed 11 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Factor loading on distinct dimensions was satisfactory with one exception, the absenteeism item (item 31), which showed cross-loadings and poor factor loading on the absenteeism dimension. The results of the G-SVESTR revealed only some differences between the professional subgroups. Conclusion: The G-SVESTR is a valid and reliable testing instrument for the evaluation of second victim experiences in different medical professions.