Objectives “Second victims” are defined as healthcare professionals whose wellness is influenced by adverse clinical events. The Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST) was used to measure the second-victim experience and quality of support resources. Although the reliability and validity of the original SVEST have been validated, those for the Korean tool have not been validated. The aim of the study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Korean version of the SVEST. Methods The study included 305 clinical nurses as participants. The SVEST was translated into Korean via back translation. Content validity was assessed by seven experts, and test-retest reliability was evaluated by 30 clinicians. Internal consistency and construct validity were assessed via confirmatory factor analysis. The analyses were performed using SPSS 23.0 and STATA 13.0 software. Results The content validity index value demonstrated validity; item- and scale-level content validity index values were both 0.95. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency reliability were satisfactory: the intraclass consistent coefficient was 0.71, and Cronbach α values ranged from 0.59 to 0.87. The CFA showed a significantly good fit for an eight-factor structure (χ2 = 578.21, df = 303, comparative fit index = 0.92, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.90, root mean square error of approximation = 0.05). Conclusions The K-SVEST demonstrated good psychometric properties and adequate validity and reliability. The results showed that the Korean version of SVEST demonstrated the extent of second victimhood and support resources in Korean healthcare workers and could aid in the development of support programs and evaluation of their effectiveness.

Objective Early warning systems (EWSs) are an integral part of processes that aim to improve the early identification and management of deteriorating patients in general wards. However, the widespread implementation of these systems has not generated robust data regarding nurses’ clinical performance and patients’ adverse events. This review aimed to determine the ability of EWSs to improve nurses’ clinical performance and prevent adverse events among deteriorating ward patients. Method The PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant publications (January 1, 1997, to April 12, 2017). In addition, a grey literature search evaluated several guideline Web sites. The main outcome measures were nurses’ clinical performance (vital sign monitoring and rapid response team notification) and patients’ adverse events (in-hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, and unplanned intensive care unit [ICU] admission). Results The search identified 888 reports, although only five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The findings of these studies revealed that EWSs implementation had a positive effect on nurses’ clinical performance, based on their frequency of documenting vital signs that were related to the patient’s clinical deterioration. In addition, postimplementation reductions were identified for cardiac arrest, unplanned ICU admission, and unexpected death. Conclusions It seems that EWSs can improve nurses’ clinical performance and prevent adverse events (e.g., in-hospital mortality, unplanned ICU admission, and cardiac arrest) among deteriorating ward patients. However, additional high-quality evidence is needed to more comprehensively evaluate the effects of EWSs on these outcomes.

This study was done to examine factors influencing nurses' perception of patient safety culture in reporting of patient safety events. Methods: Structured questionnaires were used to collect data from 305 nurses who were involved in direct patient care. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson correlation coefficients and multiple linear regressions with SPSS/WIN version 24.0. Results: Patient safety events were reported as follows: 4.60±0.63 for harmful incidents, 4.02±0.82 for no harm incidents, and 3.59±0.97 for near misses. Patient safety event reporting was significantly positively correlated with patient safety culture. Regression analysis showed, factors influencing reports of harmful incidents were'feedback and communication about error','supervisor/manager expectations'and'carrier of hospital'. Factors influencing reports of no harm incidents were'feedback and communication about error'. Factors influencing reports on near-misses were 'teamwork across units', 'overall perceptions of safety', and 'feedback and communication about error'. Conclusion: Findings show that reports of near misses are relatively low and need to be strengthened. These results provide evidence that reporting on patient safety events would be enhanced through improved patient safety culture. Hospital managers could identify factors that affect reporting of each patient safety event and use it to develop intervention programs for risk management.