Adverse events within health care settings can lead to two victims. The first victim is the patient and family and the second victim is the involved health care professional. The latter is the focus of this review. The objectives are to determine definitions of this concept, research the prevalence and the impact of the adverse event on the second victim, and the used coping strategies. Therefore a literature research was performed by using a three-step search procedure. A total of 32 research articles and 9 nonresearch articles were identified. The second victim phenomenon was first described by Wu in 2000. In 2009, Scott et al. introduced a detailed definition of second victims. The prevalence of second victims after an adverse event varied from 10.4% up to 43.3%. Common reactions can be emotional, cognitive, and behavioral. The coping strategies used by second victims have an impact on their patients, colleagues, and themselves. After the adverse event, defensive as well as constructive changes have been reported in practice. The second victim phenomenon has a significant impact on clinicians, colleagues, and subsequent patients. Because of this broad impact it is important to offer support for second victims. When an adverse event occurs, it is critical that support networks are in place to protect both the patient and involved health care providers.

Background One out of seven patients is involved in an adverse event. The first priority after such an

Results indicate that important aspects of the patient safety culture in these hospitals need improvement. This is an important challenge to all stakeholders wishing to improve patient safety.

IntroductionThe aims of this study were to explore the incidence of in-hospital inappropriate empiric antibiotic use in patients with severe infection and to identify its relationship with patient outcomes.MethodsMedline (from 2004 to 2014) was systematically searched by using predefined inclusion criteria. Reference lists of retrieved articles were screened for additional relevant studies. The systematic review included original articles reporting a quantitative measure of the association between the use of (in)appropriate empiric antibiotics in patients with severe in-hospital infections and their outcomes. A meta-analysis, using a random-effects model, was conducted to quantify the effect on mortality by using risk ratios.ResultsIn total, 27 individual articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The percentage of inappropriate empiric antibiotic use ranged from 14.1% to 78.9% (Q1-Q3: 28.1% to 57.8%); 13 of 27 studies (48.1%) described an incidence of 50% or more. A meta-analysis for 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality showed risk ratios of 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.82) and 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.80), respectively. Studies with outcome parameter 28-day and 60-day mortality reported significantly (P ≤0.02) higher mortality rates in patients receiving inappropriate antibiotics. Two studies assessed the total costs, which were significantly higher in both studies (P ≤0.01).ConclusionsThis systematic review with meta-analysis provides evidence that inappropriate use of empiric antibiotics increases 30-day and in-hospital mortality in patients with a severe infection.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0795-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.