No abstract

Background: Second victim phenomena (SVP) are critical to workplace and patient safety, and epidemiological data are limited to investigate the causes and impact on German health care. We investigated SVP in German nurses regarding prevalence, causes, and predisposition compared to a preceding study on German physicians (Second Victims in Deutschland/SeViD-I). Methods: We conducted a nationwide anonymous cross-sectional online study in 2020 using a modified SeViD questionnaire including the BFI-10 (personality traits). Statistical analysis was conducted using chi² tests and binary logistic regression models. Results: Of 332 nurses, 60% reported to experience SVP at least once a working lifetime, with a 12-month prevalence among SVP of 49%. Of the nurses, 24% reported recovery times of more than 1 year. In contrast to physicians from SeViD-I, a main cause for becoming a second victim was aggressive behavior by patients. High neuroticism values, higher age, and medium work life experience, but neither gender nor workplace position, were predisposing for SVP. Like SeViD-I, nurses reported demand for an institutional response in cases of SVP. Conclusions: SVP is common among German nurses and comprises other causes and a different course than in physicians. Further research should concentrate on specific prevention strategies, e.g., profession- and workplace-based educational programs.

Introduction: Comparable to second victim phenomenon (SVP), moral injury (MI) affects health professionals (HP) working in stressful environments. Information on how MI and SVP intercorrelate and their part in a psychological trauma complex is limited. We tested and validated a German version of the Moral Injury Symptom and Support Scale for Health Professionals (G-MISS-HP) instrument, screening for MI and correlated it with the recently developed German version of the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (G-SVESTR) instrument, testing for SVP. Methods: After translating Moral Injury Symptom and Support Scale for Health Professionals (MISS-HP), we conducted a cross-sectional online survey providing G-MISS-HP and G-SVEST-R to HP. Statistics included Pearson’s interitem correlation, reliability analysis, principal axis factoring and principal components analysis with Promax rotation, confirmatory factor and ROC analyses. Results: A total of 244 persons responded, of whom 156 completed the survey (33% nurses, 16% physicians, 9% geriatric nurses, 7.1% speech and language therapists). Interitem and corrected item-scale correlations did not measure for one item sufficiently. It was, therefore, excluded from further analyses. The nine-item score revealed good reliability (Guttman’s lambda 2 = 0.80; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79). Factor validity was demonstrated, indicating that a three-factor model from the original study might better represent the data compared with our two-factor model. Positive correlations between G-MISS-HP and G-SVESTR subscales demonstrated convergent validity. ROC revealed sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 63% for G-MISS-HP using a nine-item scale with cutoff value of 28.5 points. Positive and negative predictive values were 62% and 69%, respectively. Subgroup analyses did not reveal any differences. Conclusion: G-MISS-HP with nine items is a valid and reliable testing instrument for moral injury. However, strong intercorrelations of MI and SVP indicate the need for further research on the distinction of these phenomena.

Introduction:The second victim phenomenon that occurs after critical events poses a serious factor for patient and workplace safety. These experiences can be evaluated using the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST), originally in English, or the translated and validated Korean or Chinese versions. In 2020, a revised version was published (SVESTR) with the addition of resilience items. The aim of this study is the validation of the German version, the G-SVESTR, in a multiprofessional setting. Methods:The G-SVESTR questionnaire was designed according to World Health Organization recommendations. This entails translation, test for face validity, back translation, pretest, expert panel evaluation, and a test in a large population for validity and reliability. We provided an anonymous online questionnaire to physicians, nurses, paramedics, medical assistants, and physician assistants to test our developed tool. Statistics were accomplished using XL-Stats.Results: Altogether, 72% (306 of 428) of the participants completed the survey. The mean time for completion was 9.4 minutes. Physician assistants and medical assistants were significantly younger than other respondents. The analysis revealed satisfactory reliability (Cronbach α = 0.844). A principal component analysis showed 11 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Factor loading on distinct dimensions was satisfactory with one exception, the absenteeism item (item 31), which showed cross-loadings and poor factor loading on the absenteeism dimension. The results of the G-SVESTR revealed only some differences between the professional subgroups. Conclusion:The G-SVESTR is a valid and reliable testing instrument for the evaluation of second victim experiences in different medical professions.

Introduction: Training in hand hygiene for health care workers is essential to reduce hospital-acquired infections. Unfortunately, training in this competency may be perceived as tedious, time-consuming, and expendable. In preceding studies, our working group detected overconfidence effects in the self-assessment of hand hygiene competencies. Overconfidence is the belief of being better than others (overplacement) or being better than tests reveal (overestimation). The belief that members of their profession are better than other professionals is attributable to the clinical tribalism phenomenon. The study aimed to assess the correlation of overconfidence effects on hand hygiene and their association with four motivational dimensions (intrinsic, identified, external, and amotivation) to attend hand hygiene training. Methods: We conducted an open online convenience sampling survey with 103 health care professionals (physicians, nurses, and paramedics) in German, combining previously validated questionnaires for (a) overconfidence in hand hygiene and (b) learning motivation assessments. Statistics included parametric, nonparametric, and cluster analyses. Results: We detected a quadratic, u-shaped correlation between learning motivation and the assessments of one’s own and others’ competencies. The results of the quadratic regressions with overplacement and its quadratic term as predictors indicated that the model explained 7% of the variance of amotivation (R2 = 0.07; F(2, 100) = 3.94; p = 0.02). Similarly, the quadratic model of clinical tribalism for nurses in comparison to physicians and its quadratic term explained 18% of the variance of amotivation (R2 = 0.18; F(2, 48) = 5.30; p = 0.01). Cluster analysis revealed three distinct groups of participants: (1) “experts” (n1 = 43) with excellent knowledge and justifiable confidence in their proficiencies but still motivated for ongoing training, and (2) “recruitables” (n2 = 43) who are less competent with mild overconfidence and higher motivation to attend training, and (3) “unawares” (n3 = 17) being highly overconfident, incompetent (especially in assessing risks for incorrect and omitted hand hygiene), and lacking motivation for training. Discussion: We were able to show that a highly rated self-assessment, which was justified (confident) or unjustified (overconfident), does not necessarily correlate with a low motivation to learn. However, the expert’s learning motivation stayed high. Overconfident persons could be divided into two groups: motivated for training (recruitable) or not (unaware). These findings are consistent with prior studies on overconfidence in medical and non-medical contexts. Regarding the study’s limitations (sample size and convenience sampling), our findings indicate a need for further research in the closed populations of health care providers on training motivation in hand hygiene.