Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27580830›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Psychological impact and recovery after involvement in a patient safety incident: a repeated measures analysis.

Eva Van Gerven, Luk Bruyneel, Massimiliano Panella, Martin Euwema, Walter Sermeus, Kris Vanhaecht

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The second victim phenomenon´s impact in male and female healthcare workers: a scoping review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Second Victims Among Austrian Nurses (SeViD-A2 Study).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Eva Van GervenKU Leuven-University of Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Leuven, Belgium.
Luk BruyneelKU Leuven-University of Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Leuven, Belgium.
Massimiliano PanellaFaculty of Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont Amedeo Avogadro, Vercelli, Italy.
Martin EuwemaKU Leuven-University of Leuven Occupational & Organizational Psychology and Professional Learning, Leuven, Belgium.
Walter SermeusKU Leuven-University of Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Leuven, Belgium.
Kris VanhaechtKU Leuven-University of Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine individual, situational and organisational aspects that influence psychological impact and recovery of a patient safety incident on physicians, nurses and midwives.

designCross-sectional, retrospective surveys of physicians, midwives and nurses.

setting33 Belgian hospitals.

participants913 clinicians (186 physicians, 682 nurses, 45 midwives) involved in a patient safety incident.

main outcome measuresThe Impact of Event Scale was used to retrospectively measure psychological impact of the safety incident at the time of the event and compare it with psychological impact at the time of the survey.

resultsIndividual, situational as well as organisational aspects influenced psychological impact and recovery of a patient safety incident. Psychological impact is higher when the degree of harm for the patient is more severe, when healthcare professionals feel responsible for the incident and among female healthcare professionals. Impact of degree of harm differed across clinicians. Psychological impact is lower among more optimistic professionals. Overall, impact decreased significantly over time. This effect was more pronounced for women and for those who feel responsible for the incident. The longer ago the incident took place, the stronger impact had decreased. Also, higher psychological impact is related with the use of a more active coping and planning coping strategy, and is unrelated to support seeking coping strategies. Rendered support and a support culture reduce psychological impact, whereas a blame culture increases psychological impact. No associations were found with job experience and resilience of the health professional, the presence of a second victim support team or guideline and working in a learning culture.

conclusionsHealthcare organisations should anticipate on providing their staff appropriate and timely support structures that are tailored to the healthcare professional involved in the incident and to the specific situation of the incident.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalPatient SafetySafety ManagementAdultBelgiumCross-Sectional StudiesEmotionsFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMedical ErrorsMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSelf Report

Identifiers

PMID27580830
PMCPMC5013512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.