Aim The study aimed to investigate nurses’ second victim experience and quality of support resources in Singapore. Background The second victim phenomenon, broadly described as the suffering of providers including nurses in the face of a clinical error, is often overlooked. Methods A cross‐sectional questionnaire survey was adopted. A total of 1,163 nurses from an acute public hospital in Singapore took part in the study. The Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST) was employed to assess experience of second victims and the quality of support resources. Results The study results showed that nurses experienced second victim‐related physical, psychological and professional distress. About 31.8% of the participants had turnover intentions, while 9.3% had absenteeism following an error. Nurses who are younger and less experienced were more likely to experience greater second victim response. Among the support options, peer support was rated as the most desirable. Conclusion Nurses, being at the forefront of care delivery, are especially susceptible to being a casualty of the second victim phenomenon. Implications for Nursing Management Acknowledging the second victim phenomenon, together with a strong organizational support, is essential in alleviating the trauma and assisting nurses with reconciliation in the aftermath of an unanticipated error.

Even though nurses who spent more time at work were still satisfied with their job, they might need to be aware of their physical health and work environment. Nursing policy related to nurses' physical health and environment should be established. Health promotion programmes such as physical exercise and mindfulness interventions should be conducted to promote nurses' well-being and healthy workplace environments to enhance nurses' quality of life.

This study highlighted the perceptions of nurses regarding psychosocial care and the challenges in providing this care. Future studies are needed to explore ways to overcome these barriers and to enhance nurses' competencies in providing psychosocial care. The findings indicate a need to plan future interventions to provide nurses with both skill development and support to improve their ability to integrate psychosocial care, which will improve patient outcomes.

The study aimed to compare nurses’ quality of life and investigate key determinants among Asian countries with different economic status. A cross-sectional survey was conducted across five Asian countries (Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and Bhutan). Quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF), job stress (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health questionnaire), and demographic data were assessed. Stepwise multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to identify the key determinants of quality of life. Participants were 3,829 nurses (response rate: 82%) with a mean age of 33 ± 10 yr and majority were women (92%). Regarding quality of life, Bhutan yielded the highest scores, followed by Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, and Japan, and these results were statistically significant. The key determinants that were significantly related to quality of life were “stress coping ability,” “life satisfaction,” “Japan,” “social support,” “job stress,” and “Singapore” (adjusted R2=0.46). In conclusion, nurses’ quality of life differs across Asian countries and is not linked to the country’s economic development. To maintain a good quality of life for nurses, an international exchange program like international nursing conferences for work environment and staff coping strategies is recommended to broaden institution’ minds and share experiences and exchange views to be able to realize their own problems and discover global solutions to them.