Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25162208›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient safety2017

The Second Victim Experience and Support Tool: Validation of an Organizational Resource for Assessing Second Victim Effects and the Quality of Support Resources.

Jonathan D Burlison, Susan D Scott, Emily K Browne, Sierra G Thompson, James M Hoffman

Abstract readEvaluation StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient safety, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

95 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jonathan D BurlisonFrom the *Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee; †Patient Safety and Risk Management, University of Missouri Health Care/Sinclair School of Nursing, Columbia, Missouri; ‡Department of Nursing Research, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital; and §Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, Tennessee.
Susan D Scott
Emily K Browne
Sierra G Thompson
James M Hoffman

Funding

Viral Vector Technology (VVTSR)P30CA021765 · NCI · ST. JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL · PI CHARLES ROBERTS · 1985 to 2026
$166.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA021765
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMedical errors and unanticipated negative patient outcomes can damage the well-being of health care providers. These affected individuals, referred to as "second victims," can experience various psychological and physical symptoms. Support resources provided by health care organizations to prevent and reduce second victim-related harm are often inadequate. In this study, we present the development and psychometric evaluation of the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST), a survey instrument that can assist health care organizations to implement and track the performance of second victim support resources.

methodsThe SVEST (29 items representing 7 dimensions and 2 outcome variables) was completed by 303 health care providers involved in direct patient care. The survey collected responses on second victim-related psychological and physical symptoms and the quality of support resources. Desirability of possible support resources was also measured. The SVEST was assessed for content validity, internal consistency, and construct validity with confirmatory factor analysis.

resultsConfirmatory factor analysis results suggested good model fit for the survey. Cronbach α reliability scores for the survey dimensions ranged from 0.61 to 0.89. The most desired second victim support option was "A respected peer to discuss the details of what happened."

conclusionsThe SVEST can be used by health care organizations to evaluate second victim experiences of their staff and the quality of existing support resources. It can also provide health care organization leaders with information on second victim-related support resources most preferred by their staff. The SVEST can be administered before and after implementing new second victim resources to measure perceptions of effectiveness.

Indexed as

Medical ErrorsPatient SafetyDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHealth ResourcesHumansOrganizationsPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsStress, PsychologicalSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25162208
PMCPMC4342309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.