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

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may aggravate workplace conditions that impact health-care workers’ mental health. However, it can also place other stresses on workers outside of their work. This study determines the effect of COVID-19 on symptoms of negative and positive mental health and the workforce’s experience with various sources of support. Effect modification by demographic variables was also studied. Methods A cross-sectional survey study, conducted between 2 April and 4 May 2020 (two waves), led to a convenience sample of 4509 health-care workers in Flanders (Belgium), including paramedics (40.6%), nurses (33.4%), doctors (13.4%) and management staff (12.2%). About three in four were employed in university and acute hospitals (29.6%), primary care practices (25.7%), residential care centers (21.3%) or care sites for disabled and mental health care. In each of the two waves, participants were asked how frequently (on a scale of 0–10) they experienced positive and negative mental health symptoms during normal circumstances and during last week, referred to as before and during COVID-19, respectively. These symptoms were stress, hypervigilance, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, unable to relax, fear, irregular lifestyle, flashback, difficulty concentrating, feeling unhappy and dejected, failing to recognize their own emotional response, doubting knowledge and skills and feeling uncomfortable within the team. Associations between COVID-19 and mental health symptoms were estimated by cumulative logit models and reported as odds ratios. The needed support was our secondary outcome and was reported as the degree to which health-care workers relied on sources of support and how they experienced them. Results All symptoms were significantly more pronounced during versus before COVID-19. For hypervigilance, there was a 12-fold odds (odds ratio 12.24, 95% confidence interval 11.11–13.49) during versus before COVID-19. Positive professional symptoms such as the feeling that one can make a difference were less frequently experienced. The association between COVID-19 and mental health was generally strongest for the age group 30–49 years, females, nurses and residential care centers. Health-care workers reported to rely on support from relatives and peers. A considerable proportion, respectively, 18 and 27%, reported the need for professional guidance from psychologists and more support from their leadership. Conclusions The toll of the crisis has been heavy on health-care workers. Those who carry leadership positions at an organizational or system level should take this opportunity to develop targeted strategies to mitigate key stressors of health-care workers’ mental well-being.

ObjectivesTo describe healthcare providers’ symptoms evoked by patient safety incidents (PSIs), the duration of these symptoms and the association with the degree of patient harm caused by the incident.DesignCross-sectional survey.Setting32 Dutch hospitals that participate in the ‘Peer Support Collaborative’.Participants4369 healthcare providers (1619 doctors and 2750 nurses) involved in a PSI at any time during their career.InterventionsAll doctors and nurses working in direct patient care in the 32 participating hospitals were invited via email to participate in an online survey.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrevalence of symptoms, symptom duration and its relationship with the degree of patient harm.ResultsIn total 4369 respondents were involved in a PSI and completely filled in the questionnaire. Of these, 462 reported having been involved in a PSI with permanent harm or death during the last 6 months. This had a personal, professional impact as well as impact on effective teamwork requirements. The impact of a PSI increased when the degree of patient harm was more severe. The most common symptom was hypervigilance (53.0%). The three most common symptoms related to teamwork were having doubts about knowledge and skill (27.0%), feeling unable to provide quality care (15.6%) and feeling uncomfortable within the team (15.5%). PSI with permanent harm or death was related to eightfold higher likelihood of provider-related symptoms lasting for more than 1 month and ninefold lasting longer than 6 months compared with symptoms reported when the PSI caused no harm.ConclusionThe impact of PSI remains an underestimated problem. The higher the degree of harm, the longer the symptoms last. Future studies should evaluate how these data can be integrated in evidence-based support systems.

Our results show that the average protocol adherence in clinical practice is 44%. The variation on patient and hospital level is considerable. Only in one patient the adherence rate was >70%. In total, 30% of patients received 50% or more of the key interventions. A solid implementation strategy seems to be needed to improve the uptake of the ERAS pathway. The importance-performance matrix can help in prioritizing the areas for improvement.

phenomenon can have on a care provider's personal and professional life. Care providers can suffer from guilt, anger, psychological distress, fear, insomnia, and long-term consequences similar to post traumatic stress disorder, which often results in significant functional impairment. 8,10,11 There can be a negative impact on their patients, colleagues, supervisors, managers, and organization as well. 10 The prevalence of the second victim experience is estimated to be as high as 50%. 11 Health-care leaders need to be aware of the high INTRODUCTION Medical procedures performed in hospitals carry the risk of side effects. 1-4 As many as 1 in 7 patients is involved in an adverse event. 3,5 However, when an adverse event occurs, patients and their families are not the only victims. Health-care professionals involved in a serious adverse event can also suffer. These health-care professionals are often referred to as "second victims". 6-10 A systematic review by Seys et al. 10 identified the significant impact that the second victim

Care pathway implementation is characterised by a dual complexity. A care pathway itself represents a complex intervention with multiple interacting and interdependent intervention components and outcomes. The organisations in which care pathways are being implemented represent complex systems that need to be directed at change through an in-depth understanding of their external and internal context in which they are functioning in. This study sets out a new evidence-based and pragmatic framework that unpacks how intervention mechanisms, intervention fidelity and care context are converge and represent interacting processes that determine success or failure of the care pathway. We recommend researchers looking to increase the effectiveness of care pathway implementation and accelerate improvement of desired outcomes to adopt this framework from inception to implementation of the intervention.

An increased need for efficiency and effectiveness in today’s healthcare system urges professionals to improve the organization of care. Care pathways are an important tool to achieve this. The overall aim of this study was to analyze if care pathways lead to better organization of care processes. For this, the Care Process Self-Evaluation tool (CPSET) was used to evaluate how healthcare professionals perceive the organization of care processes. Based on information from 2692 health care professionals gathered between November 2007 and October 2011 we audited 261 care processes in 108 organizations. Multilevel analysis was used to compare care processes without and with care pathways and analyze if care pathways led to better organization of care processes. A significant difference between care processes with and without care pathways was found. A care pathway in use led to significant better scores on the overall CPSET scale (p<0.001) and its subscales, “coordination of care” (p<0.001) and “follow-up of care” (p<0.001). Physicians had the highest score on the overall CPSET scale and the five subscales. Care processes organized by care pathways had a 2.6 times higher probability that the care process was well-organized. In around 75% of the cases a care pathway led to better organized care processes. Care processes supported by care pathways were better organized, but not all care pathways were well-organized. Managers can use care pathways to make healthcare professionals more aware of their role in the organization of the care process.