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.

Objectives To determine the volume of health professionals who suffered distress due to their care of patients with COVID-19 and to analyse the direction in which the response capacity of the professionals to face future waves of COVID-19 is evolving. Design A cross-sectional study. Setting Primary care and hospitals in Spain. Participants A non-randomised sample of 685 professionals (physicians, nurses and other health staff). Primary and secondary outcome measures Frequency and intensity of stress responses measured by the Acute Stress of Health Professionals Caring COVID-19 Scale (EASE). Variation of stress responses according to the number of deaths per day per territory and the evolutionary stage of the COVID-19 outbreak measured by the Kruskal-Wallis and the Mann-Whitney U tests. Results The average score on the EASE Scale was 11.1 (SD 6.7) out of 30. Among the participants, 44.2% presented a good emotional adjustment, 27.4% a tolerable level of distress, 23.9% medium–high emotional load and 4.5% extreme acute stress. The stress responses were more intense in the most affected territories (12.1 vs 9.3, p=0.003) and during the disillusionment phase (12.7 vs 8.5 impact, 10.2 heroic and 9.8 honeymoon, p=0.000). Conclusions The pandemic has affected the mental health of a significant proportion of health professionals which may reduce their resilience in the face of future waves of COVID-19. The institutional approaches to support the psychological needs of health professionals are essential to ensure optimal care considering these results.

To summarize the knowledge about the aftermath of adverse events (AEs) and develop a recommendation set to reduce their negative impact in patients, health professionals and organizations in contexts where there is no previous experiences and apology laws are not present. Review studies published between 2000 and 2015, institutional websites and experts’ opinions on patient safety. Studies published and websites on open disclosure, and the second and third victims’ phenomenon. Four Focus Groups participating 27 healthcare professionals. Study characteristic and outcome data were abstracted by two authors and reviewed by the research team. Fourteen publications and 16 websites were reviewed. The recommendations were structured around eight areas: (i) safety and organizational policies, (ii) patient care, (iii) proactive approach to preventing reoccurrence, (iv) supporting the clinician and healthcare team, (v) activation of resources to provide an appropriate response, (vi) informing patients and/or family members, (vii) incidents’ analysis and (viii) protecting the reputation of health professionals and the organization. Recommendations preventing aftermath of AEs have been identified. These have been designed for the hospital and the primary care settings; to cope with patient's emotions and for tacking the impact of AE in the second victim's colleagues. Its systematic use should help for the establishment of organizational action plans after an AE.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

Objective This study aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in acute pancreatitis (AP) as an endpoint centred on the patient. Design A PROM instrument (PAtieNt-rePoRted OutcoMe scale in acute pancreatItis, an international proSpEctive cohort study, PAN-PROMISE scale) was designed based on the opinion of patients, professionals and an expert panel. The scale was validated in an international multicentre prospective cohort study, describing the severity of AP and quality of life at 15 days after discharge as the main variables for validation. The COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) methodology was applied. Both the design and validation stages considered the content and face validity of this new instrument; the metric properties of the different items, reliability (reproducibility and internal consistence), the construct, structural and criterion validity, responsiveness and interpretability of this scale. Results PAN-PROMISE consists of a seven-item scale based on the symptoms that cause the most discomfort and concern to patients with AP. The validation cohort involved 15 countries, 524 patients. The intensity of symptoms changed from higher values during the first 24 hours to lower values at discharge and 15 days thereafter. Items converged into a unidimensional ordinal scale with good fit indices. Internal consistency and split-half reliability at discharge were adequate. Reproducibility was confirmed using test–retest reliability and comparing the PAN-PROMISE score at discharge and 15 days after discharge. Evidence is also provided for the convergent-discriminant and empirical validity of the scale. Conclusion The PAN-PROMISE scale is a useful tool to be used as an endpoint in clinical trials, and to quantify patient well-being during the hospital admission and follow-up. Trial registration number NCT03650062