2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.cali.2016.02.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Personal, situational and organizational aspects that influence the impact of patient safety incidents: A qualitative study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
68
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(69 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
68
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Although patient safety incidents are common (i.e., between 4% and 17% of hospitals admissions are linked to adverse events), 11 they are still stigmatized, with a strong negative impact for physicians. 12 , 13 Historically, it has been overlooked that adverse events affect not only the patient as first victim but also are also highly stressful for the involved providers, thus commonly considered as second victims. 8 Although there has been recent controversy over use of the term second victim , an alternative, more appropriate term has not been established.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although patient safety incidents are common (i.e., between 4% and 17% of hospitals admissions are linked to adverse events), 11 they are still stigmatized, with a strong negative impact for physicians. 12 , 13 Historically, it has been overlooked that adverse events affect not only the patient as first victim but also are also highly stressful for the involved providers, thus commonly considered as second victims. 8 Although there has been recent controversy over use of the term second victim , an alternative, more appropriate term has not been established.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The possible explanation is that the relevant factors have not been included in these models and/or that multiple factors and their complex interactions influence the outcome. Van Gerven et al lists personal, situational and organisational aspects that impact the outcome [37]. Therefore, further research could concentrate on individual factors like personality characteristics, details of the traumatising events, or environmental conditions to explain differences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• Support from managers at all levels, counselors or therapist, department/unit or institution and psychological support (6,9,15,29,33,(43)(44)55,59,61,(65)(66)68,70,(75)(76) • Website Mitigating Impact in Second Victims (MISE) (39,(42)(43)(50)(51) • Second Victim Support Unit (USVIC) (62) • Coping strategies (13,16,(23)(24)(25)30,35,44,46,61,(63)(64) • Support from co-workers, spouse, family members, friends and multidisciplinary team ( 6,13,16,30,42,44,58,61,66,77) • Training and learning from error (24,42,(67)(68)71,…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another aspect of this category was the conception that some studies addressed interventions and actions based on strategies with an emphasis on the problem and on emotion/cognition (35,(42)(43)61,63) and coping strategies, among them reflective writing (7,25) , temporary leave from work (33,55) , selfpunishment, self-defense or fact denial (27,35,55,63,66,71) and depersonalization (55) . Learning with error (42,(67)(68)71,(75)(76) , positive feedback (24,42) , proactive education (74) and the participation of the second victim in the AE root cause analysis process, in the construction of action plans and in the validation of the decision-making process to avoid future incidents (71,76) were also mentioned as a source of support for training.…”
Section: Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%