Search the hub

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of After Action Review on safety culture and second victim experience and to examine After Action Review implementation in a hospital setting.

Healthcare staff are frequently drawn to their career by a strong personal ethic to help others, and are educated to ‘first do no harm’. Being involved in events which lead to harm – or potential harm (defined as a ‘near miss’) – of a patient in their care can be deeply distressing. The immediate need to address and/or repair the harm is often accompanied by feelings of shock, panic and fear. In addition, deep feelings of shame and guilt are common. Healthcare professionals’ competence and identity are called into question and their personal ethics violated. The aims of this article are to: Outline the origins of the ‘second victim’ term. Reflect on some of the main objections to it and the related consequences. Outline work undertaken to try and identify a more acceptable term. Demonstrate, term aside, the need to support healthcare staff involved in a patient safety incident (PSI). Make recommendations which, if enacted, will improve support for ALL involved in a PSI.

Stacia Dearmin shares how reading Albert Wu's personal essay entitled “Medical error: the second victim,” published in the BMJ in response to a major report from the Institute of Medicine called “To Err is Human,” helped him process his feelings when one of his patients died.

ASSIST ME is a model for staff support following patient safety incidents in healthcare, developed by the National Open Disclosure Programme of the Irish Health Services Executive. This booklet aims to provide practical information and guidance for health and social care managers and staff about: understanding the potential impact of patient safety incidents on staff. recognising and managing the associated signs and symptoms. supporting staff following patient safety incidents. providing information on the support services available to staff.

Incontrovertible evidence surrounds the need to support healthcare professionals after patient safety incidents (PSIs). However, what characterises effective organisational support is less clearly understood and defined. This review aims to determine what support healthcare professionals want for coping with PSIs, what support interventions/approaches are currently available and which have evidence for effectiveness. The study found that, beyond peer support, organisational support for PSIs appears to be misaligned with staff desires. Gaps exist in providing preparatory/preventive interventions and practical support and guidance. Reliable effectiveness data are lacking. Very few studies incorporated comparison groups or randomisation; most used self-report measures. Despite inconclusive evidence, formal peer support programmes dominate. This review illustrates a critical need to fund robust PSI-related intervention effectiveness studies to provide organisations with the evidence they need to make informed decisions when building PSI support programmes.

The impact of a patient safety incident (PSI) on nurses and doctors in hospital settings has been studied in depth. However, the impact of a PSI on general practitioners and how those health care professionals can be supported are less clear. This Belgian study investigated the prevalence of GPs (in training) being personally involved in a PSI, as well as the impact, the support needed and open disclosure in the aftermath of these PSIs.

A set of eLearning modules designed to educate and update clinicians on the importance of involving families wherever possible during mental health crises to improve patient care, avoid harm and reduce deaths. They were developed as a partnership between Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and Making Families Count, with funding from NHS England South East Region (HEE legacy funds).   The resources have been co-produced by people with lived experience as patients, family carers and clinicians, supported by an Advisory Group drawn from a wide range of expertise, tested in eleven NHS Trusts and independently evaluated.   The resources can be downloaded by NHS Trust Learning and Development teams to support a Trust-wide approach to essential learning and training.   Through short film and audio scenarios and case studies, Life Beyond the Cubicle shows why it is so important to involve family and friends, helps clinicians reflect on why they don’t do so routinely, and how they can overcome these barriers. The resources are engaging and interactive. The modules are: Introduction (includes guidance on how to use this resource) Module 1: Why do families and friends matter? Module 2: Assumptions and expertise Module 3: Feelings and fears Module 4: Confidentiality and Information Sharing Module 5: Safety planning Resources for family and friends They are free to the health and social care workforce. Further reading on the hub: Safer outcomes for people with psychosis Patient Safety Spotlight interview with Rosi Reed, Development and Training Coordinator at Making Families Count The future has been around for too long—when will the NHS learn from their mistakes?

Patient safety incidents, including medical errors and adverse events, frequently occur in intensive care units, leading to a significant psychological burden on healthcare professionals. This burden results in second victim syndrome, which impacts the psychological and psychosomatic wellbeing of these staff members. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the occurrence of second victim syndrome among intensive care unit healthcare workers, including the types, prevalence, risk factors and recovery time associated with the condition.

The harsh reality of surgery often involves grappling with the distressing and emotionally taxing aspects of human suffering that many people outside of healthcare never witness. When complications occur, surgeons feel the weight of their responsibility and are often alone to ruminate with negative thoughts of self-doubt, sometimes leading to anxiety and depression. This article in The American Journal of Surgery examines existing literature on Second Victim Syndrome (SVS) specifically focusing on prevalence among surgeons and factors related to different responses. The authors identify women and junior surgeons at particularly high risk of SVS and peer support as a preferred method of coping but an overall lack of institutional support highlighting the need for ongoing, open conversations about the topic of surgeon well-being.

This document by the Joint Commission provides an overview of the issues faced by healthcare workers who are negatively affected by their involvement in a patient safety incident—second victims. It highlights the prevalence of second victims, summarises the key problems they face and outlines recommendations to ensure staff receive adequate support from healthcare organisations when they are involved in an incident.

Second victims are healthcare workers who experience emotional distress following patient adverse events. This mixed method study in BMJ Open looks at how the RISE (Resilience In Stressful Events) programme was developed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital to provide this support. It examined: developing the RISE programme recruiting and training peer responders pilot launch in the Department of Paediatrics hospital-wide implementation.

Every day, healthcare professionals face the risk of traumatic events — such as an unexpected death, a medical error, or an unplanned transfer to the ICU. Yet few hospitals have programmes to support “second victims.” Too often, these employees experience self-doubt, burnout and other problems that cause personal anguish and hinder their ability to deliver safe, compassionate care. The Caring for the Caregiver programme from John Hopkins Medicine in the USA guides hospitals to set up peer-responder programmes that deliver “psychological first aid and emotional support” to health care professionals following difficult events. Modelled on the Resilience in Stressful Events (RISE) team at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, the programme prepares employees to provide skilled, nonjudgmental and confidential support to individuals and groups.

This study by Sexton et al. was performed to determine whether health care worker (HCW) assessments of good institutional support for second victims were associated with institutional safety culture and workforce well-being. They found that perceived institutional support for second victims was associated with a better safety culture and lower emotional exhaustion. Investment in programmes to support second victims may improve overall safety culture and HCW well-being.

This systematic review, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, looks at different support resources in healthcare organisation that are available to healthcare professionals who have been involved in a patient safety incident. The authors identify a range of challenges to the implementation of these, including persistent blame culture, limited awareness of program availability, and lack of financial resources.

Patient safety incidents can have significant effects on both patients and health professionals, including emotional distress and depression. This, published in British Journal of Surgery (BJS) Open, study explores the personal and professional impacts of surgical incidents on operating theatre staff. This study, published in BJS Open, involved 45 face-to-face interviews, with participants including surgeons, anaesthetists, scrub nurses, ODPs and healthcare assistants. The authors state that the results indicate that more support is needed for operating theatre staff involved in surgical incidents. They also suggest that there needs to be greater transparency and better information during the investigation of such incidents for staff.

When patients experience unexpected events, some health professionals become “second victims”. These care givers feel as though they have failed the patient, second guessing clinical skills, knowledge base and career choice. Although some information exists, a complete understanding of this phenomenon is essential to design and test supportive interventions that achieve a healthy recovery. Scott et al., in a paper published in BMJ Quality & Safety, report interview findings with 31 second victims. The analysis identified six stages of the second victim journey. chaos and accident response intrusive reflections restoring personal integrity obtaining emotional first aid moving on. The authors defined the characteristics and typical questions second victims are desperate to have answered during these stages. Several reported that involvement in improvement work or patient safety advocacy helped them to once again enjoy their work. The authors conclude that institutional programmes could be developed to successfully screen at-risk professionals immediately after an event, and appropriate support could be deployed to expedite recovery and mitigate adverse career outcomes.

Families of patients who died after medical errors argue that it’s time to abandon the term “second victim” to describe doctors who are involved in a medical error. In an editorial published by The BMJ, Melissa Clarkson at the University of Kentucky and colleagues say that by referring to themselves as victims, “healthcare providers subtly promote the belief that patient harm is random, caused by bad luck, and simply not preventable.” This mindset “is incompatible with the safety of patients and the accountability that patients and families expect from healthcare providers,” they argue.

In many professions, specific terms – both old and new – are often established and accepted unquestioningly, from the inside. In some cases, such terms may create and perpetuate inequity and injustice, even when introduced with good intentions. One example is the term ‘second victim’. The term ‘second victim’ was coined by Albert W Wu in his paper ‘Medical error: the second victim’. Wu wrote the following: “although patients are the first and obvious victims of medical mistakes, doctors are wounded by the same errors: they are the second victims”. In his blog, Stephen Shorrick discusses the term second victim, what patients and families think of this term, and proposes that healthcare professionals are perhaps the 'third victims'.

In this Editorial in the BMJ, Albert Wu introduced the phrase ‘second victim’ in an attempt to highlight the emotional effects for staff involved in a medical error and the need for emotional support to help their recovery.

This second victim support website was designed as a resource for clinicians who are involved in a patient safety incident, their colleagues and the organisations they work for. It has been developed by a team from the Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group and the Improvement Academy. It is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre. This web page is specific for manager and provides useful resources, advice and support.

Sidney Dekker says when there has been an incident of harm, we need to know "who is hurt, what do they need, and whose obligation is it to meet that need?" In this blog, commissioned by Patient Safety Learning, Joanne Hughes, hub topic lead, develops our understanding of the needs of patients, families and staff when things go wrong.  Using Joanne's expertise and informed by her personal experience and engagement with many others who have suffered second harm, this blog discusses the care needs for harmed patients, their families and for staff when things go wrong. It aims to highlight the chasm between what is needed and what is currently delivered. “After he died, the little plastic ID band that was around his tiny wrist should have been slipped onto mine. There was nothing more that could have been done for him, but there was plenty that needed to be done for me. I needed an infusion of truth and compassion. And the nurses and doctors who took care of him, they needed it too." Leilani Schweitzer[1] When someone is hurt, it is reasonable to expect the healthcare system to provide care to alleviate symptoms or to cure. It is also reasonable to expect those providing the care to be adequately trained and supported to do so. Yet, when harm is caused by healthcare, the spectrum of harm suffered is not well understood, care needs are not fully recognised and, therefore, the care needed to facilitate optimum recovery is not being provided.[2] In fact, with outrageous frequency, at a time when exceptional care is so desperately needed, those hurting describe how they are further harmed from ‘uncaring’ careless and injurious responses. Healthcare harm is a ‘double whammy’ for patients Healthcare harm is a ‘double whammy’. There’s the primary harm itself – to the patient and/or to those left bereaved – but there is also the separate emotional harm caused specifically by being let down by the healthcare professionals/system in which trust had to be placed.[3] This additional emotional harm has been described as being the damage caused to the trust, confidence and hope of the patient and/or their family.[4] Trust – you rely on professionals to take responsibility for what you cannot do yourself. Confidence - you believe that the system will protect you from harm. Hope – you have the conviction that things will turn out well. Anderson-Wallace and Shale[4] For the patient and family to be able to heal from healthcare harm, appropriate care must be provided not only for the primary injury and any fall out from this, but also this additional emotional injury (being let down by healthcare) and any fall out from that. For example, a parent who loses a child as a result of failures in care will need help to cope with the loss of their child and all of the processes that occur as a result. But they will also need support to cope with having had to hand over responsibility for their child’s safety to healthcare professionals, only to be let down, and all the feelings and processes associated with that. Much needs to happen to restore that parent’s trust, confidence and hope in our healthcare system and the staff within it. This is different to the parent of a child who has passed away from an incurable illness despite exemplary healthcare. A parent let down by healthcare has specific additional care and support needs that need to be met to help them cope and work towards recovery. Healthcare harm also causes emotional harm to the staff involved In 2000, Albert Wu introduced the phrase ‘second victim’ in an attempt to highlight the emotional effects for staff involved in a medical error and the need for emotional support to help their recovery.[5] The term has recently been criticised, since families should be considered the second victim,[6] and the word victim is believed “incompatible with the safety of patients and the accountability that patients and families expect from healthcare providers.”[7] While the term itself may be antagonistic, or misrepresentative, the sentiment – that staff involved in incidents need support to cope with what has happened, and to give them the confidence to do what is needed to help the patient/family heal – certainly stands. When staff are involved in an incident of patient harm, they may lose trust in their own ability and the systems they work in to keep patients safe, and they may worry about their future.[5],[8] They need care and support in order to recover themselves and, crucially, so that they feel psychologically safe and are fully supported to be open and honest about what has happened. They need to feel able to do this without fearing personal detrimental consequences for being honest, such as unfair blame or a risk to their career. This is essential to the injured patient/family receiving the full and truthful explanations and apologies they need in order to regain trust, confidence and hope, and, ultimately, to heal as best they can. So, in addition to patients and families there should be a ‘care pathway’ for staff involved in incidents of harm. A google search on ‘second victim’ reveals a wealth of research on the emotional effects of medical error for staff involved and the best ways to provide support for this, and this is resulting in the emergence of staff support provision to aid recovery.[9] In contrast, very little research has been done into the emotional effects and support needs of families and patients. How is ‘care’ for emotional harm given? The ‘treatment’ of the emotional harm has been described as ‘making amends’ – by restoring trust, confidence and hope.[4] Once a patient has been harmed by healthcare, every interaction (physical, verbal or written) they have with healthcare after that will either serve to help them heal or to compound the emotional harm already suffered. Trew et al.[10] describe harm from healthcare as a “significant loss” and conclude that “coping after harm in healthcare is a form of grieving and coping with loss”. In their model, harmed patients and families proceed through a ‘trajectory of grief’ before reaching a state of normalisation. Some can move further into a deeper stage of grief and seemingly become stuck in what is referred to as complicated grief. They can display signs of psychiatric conditions "if there are substantial unresolved issues, or where there is unsupportive action on the part of individuals associated with the healthcare system and the harm experience”. At the point of the harmful event, the patient/family experiences losses, including a drop in psychological wellbeing. From this point on, healthcare staff and organisations have opportunities to respond. If the response is supportive it may be helpful for the patient/family in coping with the losses. If the response is not supportive, this may cause ‘second harm’ complicating the healing process, leaving the patient/family with unresolved questions, emotions, anger and trust issues. The patient’s psychological wellbeing and ability to return to normal functioning are severely affected. “Most healthcare organizations have proved, in the past at least, extraordinarily bad at dealing with injured patients, resorting at times, particularly during litigation, to deeply unpleasant tactics of delay and manipulation which seriously compounded the initial problems. My phrase ‘second trauma’ is not just a linguistic device, but an accurate description of what some patients experience.” Charles Vincent[11] There is no shortage of individuals who have suffered extensive ‘second harm’ sharing their experiences in the hope this will lead to better experiences for others and some help for themselves to recover. Many are, wrongly, being ‘written off’ as historical cases that can no longer be looked at. This cannot be right – when these people are suffering and need appropriate responses to heal their wounds. The extent of suffering that exists now, in people who have been affected by both primary trauma and then second harm from uncaring defensive responses, or responses that have not taken into account the information patients and families themselves have, or relevant questions they ask, is no doubt nothing short of scandalous. There is a pressing urgency for the NHS to stop causing secondary trauma to affected patients and families. ‘Patient safety’ has to start applying to the harmed patient and their family members’ safety after an adverse event, and not just focus on preventing a repeat of the event in the future. Yes, future occurrences must be prevented, learning is crucial, but so is holistically ‘looking after’ all those affected by this incident. If they are not looked after, their safety is at risk as their ability to heal is severely compromised; in fact they are in danger of further psychological trauma. These same principles apply to affected staff. Avoiding second harm: what happens now and what is needed? This series of blogs will highlight that every interaction a harmed patient or family member has with staff in healthcare organisations (not just clinical staff) after a safety incident should be considered as ‘delivery of care’. With this view, the ‘care interaction’ should be carried out by someone trained and skilled and supported to do so, with the genuine intention of meeting the patient/families’ needs and aiding the patient/family to recover and heal (restore trust, hope and confidence). The interaction / response must not cause further harm. Stress or suffering, and the content of the interaction, for example a letter, should not have been compromised, as often occurs, by competing priorities of the organisation to the detriment of the patient/family. Thus, these blogs will look at: The processes that occur after an incident of harm (Duty of Candour, incident investigation, complaint, inquest) with the aforementioned focus. The care the patient and family need and the obligation (that ought to exist) to meet that need. Processes that are core to the package of ‘care’ to be provided to the harmed or bereaved and to be delivered by skilled and supported ‘care providers’. The blog series will seek to show that meaningful patient engagement in all of these processes is crucial for restoring trust, confidence and hope; therefore, aiding healing of all groups in the aftermath of harm. “It is important to respect and support the active involvement of patients and their families in seeking explanations and deciding how best they can be helped. Indeed at a time which is often characterised by a breakdown of trust between clinician and patient, the principle of actively involving patients and families becomes even more important.” Vincent and Coulter, 2002[3] It will also consider the additional care and support needs that might need to be met alongside these processes in a holistic package of care, such as peer support, specialist medical harm psychological support and good quality specialist advice and advocacy. It will describe what is currently available and what more is needed if healthcare is to provide adequate care for those affected by medical error in order to give them the best chance of recovery. Alongside this, the needs of the staff involved will also be considered. We welcome opinion and comments from patients, relatives, staff, researchers and patient safety experts on what should be considered when designing three harmed patient care pathways: for patients, families and staff. What is the right approach? What actions should be taken? How can these actions be implemented? What more needs to be done? Join in the discussion and give us your feedback so we can inform the work to design a harmed patient care pathway that, when implemented, will reduce the extra suffering currently (and avoidably) experienced by so many. Comment on this blog below, email us your feedback or start a conversation in the Community. References 1. Leilani Schweitzer. Transparency, compassion, and truth in medical errors. TEDxUniversityofNevada. 12 Feb 2013. 2. Bell SK, Etchegaray JM, Gaufberg E, et al. A multi-stakeholder consensus-driven research agenda for better understanding and supporting the emotional impact of harmful events on patients and families. J Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2018;44(7):424-435. 3. Vincent CA, Coulter A. Patient safety: what about the patient? BMJ Qual Saf 2002;11(1):76-80. 4. Anderson-Wallace M, Shale S. Restoring trust: What is ‘quality’ in the aftermath of healthcare harm? Clin Risk 2014;20(1-2):16-18. 5. Wu AW. Medical error: the second victim: The doctor who makes the mistake needs help too. BMJ 2000;320(7237):726-727. 6. Shorrock S. The real second victims. Humanistic Systems website. 7. Clarkson M, Haskell H, Hemmelgarn C, Skolnik PJ. Editorial: Abandon the term “second victim”. BMJ 2019; 364:l1233. 8. Scott SD, Hirschinger LE, Cox KR, McCoig M, Brandt J, Hall LW. The natural history of recovery for the healthcare provider “second victim” after adverse patient events. Qual Saf Health Care 2009;18(5):325-330. 9. Second victim support for managers website. Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group and the Improvement Academy. 10. Trew M, Nettleton S, Flemons W. Harm to Healing – Partnering with Patients Who Have Been Harmed. Canadian Patient Safety Institute 2012. 11. Vincent C. Patient Safety. Second Edition. BMJ Books 2010.

Elisabeth Poorman argues that becoming a doctor means learning that mistakes are not acceptable. From study through to practice, doctors are told in ways big and small, the only way to be a good doctor is to be a perfect doctor. The pressure only intensifies when real harm is on the line. The encouraged response is to study harder, sleep less, and never admit fear.  In this film from the 2019 Boston Moth Grand Slam, Poorman tells her own story and argues that it's not perfection, but humanity and compassion that patients need.