Objectives The overall study aim was to synthesise understandings and experiences regarding the concept of spiritual care (SC). More specifically, to identify, organise and prioritise experiences with the way SC is conceived and practised by professionals in research and the clinic. Design Group concept mapping (GCM). Setting The study was conducted within a university setting in Denmark. Participants Researchers, students and clinicians working with SC on a daily basis in the clinic and/or through research participated in brainstorming (n=15), sorting (n=15), rating and validation (n=13). Results Applying GCM, ideas were identified, organised and prioritised online. A total of 192 unique ideas of SC were identified and organised into six clusters. The results were discussed and interpreted at a validation meeting. Based on input from the validation meeting a conceptual model was developed. The model highlights three overall themes: (1) ‘SC as an integral but overlooked aspect of healthcare’ containing the two clusters SC as a part of healthcare and perceived significance; (2) ‘delivering SC’ containing the three clusters quality in attitude and action, relationship and help and support, and finally (3) ‘the role of spirituality’ containing a single cluster. Conclusion Because spirituality is predominantly seen as a fundamental aspect of each individual human being, particularly important during suffering, SC should be an integral aspect of healthcare, although it is challenging to handle. SC involves paying attention to patients’ values and beliefs, requires adequate skills and is realised in a relationship between healthcare professional and patient founded on trust and confidence.

Background: Healthcare professionals involved in adverse events may suffer severe physical and emotional distress in the aftermath. Adequate support is critical to an overall culture of safety for any healthcare institution. This study evaluates a formalised peer support program, ‘the Buddy Study’, in two Danish university hospital departments. The program consists of a 2-h seminar about second victims and self-selected buddies to provide peer support after adverse events. Methods: The study design involved a cross-sectional survey comprised of two close-ended questionnaires evaluating the Buddy Study seminar (Q1) and the Buddy Study program (Q2), along with two open-ended questions and three individual interviews for more elaborate answers. Results: Out of the 250 HCPs employed in both departments, 191 midwives, physicians, and nursing assistants completed Q1 and 156 completed Q2. The seminars were evaluated positively; 91.6% were satisfied with the overall content of the seminar, and 69.1% agreed that insight into how other people may react to adverse events has helped them contain their own reactions or emotions. Assessments of having the Buddy Study program in the department or using or being used as a buddy were more diverse, yet overall positive. Three benefits of the program were identified: the program i) has encouraged an open and compassionate culture; ii) has caused attentiveness to the wellbeing of colleagues; and iii) the self-selected buddy relationship has created a safe space for sharing. Additionally, three challenges or shortcomings were identified: i) although peer support is valuable, it should not stand alone; ii) informal peer support is already in place, hence making a formalised system redundant; and iii) the buddy system requires continuous maintenance and visibility. Conclusions: The overall evaluation of the Buddy Study program was positive, suggesting that this type of formalised peer support may contribute to a rapid and accessible second-victim support program in healthcare institutions. A key principle for the Buddy Study program is that relationships are crucial, and all buddy relationships are based on self-selection. This seems to offer a safe space for health care professionals to share emotional vulnerability and professional insecurity after an adverse event.

To describe midwives' and obstetricians' experiences on the level of support from colleagues and managers in Danish labor wards following adverse events. A 2012 National survey of Danish obstetricians and midwives was conducted to assess the level of support received in the workplace. Scales on social community at work, social support from colleagues and immediate superiors, and use of support mechanisms on labor wards after serious adverse events were assessed. 2098 midwives and obstetricians were invited to complete the survey (response rate 59%), and the analyses were carried out on the 593 respondents who had been involved in at least one traumatic childbirth at their current place of work. Respondents experienced high levels of social support from colleagues and social community at work, midwives significantly higher than obstetricians, and 95% of respondents had talked to colleagues about an adverse event. Respondents generally experienced low levels of social support and feedback from immediate superiors, and only 49% had talked to their immediate superior about an adverse event. Fifty% believed that the hospital had a clear process through which they could report adverse events, and 44% knew how to access the necessary confidential emotional support at work. Midwives and obstetricians experienced high levels of social support and feedback from colleagues who are the most frequent individuals to consult after adverse events. We strongly suggest developing second victim support programmes with a focus on offering peer support from qualified and trained peers.