ArticleBMJ open2025
Identifying key competencies for supporting second victims in different contexts: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Standardizing second victim support: development of the RESCUE certification framework for health care institutions.BMC health services research · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProviding support to second victims in workplaces is crucial for maintaining high-quality performance. Peer support approach has proven to be one of the most effective and well-accepted approaches. However, the specific competencies required for peer supporters remain unclear. This review aims to address this gap by identifying and categorising these competencies.
objectiveThis scoping review examines the competencies (skills, attitudes and knowledge) needed to support workers where the pressure of their roles may lead to errors that could cause harm to others. In such situations, these individuals may experience intense feelings of responsibility, potentially impacting their ability to perform their duties. In the healthcare sector, these workers are commonly referred to as 'second victims'. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This review includes studies that define the competencies necessary for peer supporters assisting second victims in any industry. It covers all professional roles susceptible to human errors affecting people's well-being. The focus is on peer support and psychological first aid, encompassing relevant competencies, attitudes and knowledge for addressing safety-related incidents and workplace errors. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: The scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Studies were identified through a comprehensive search of databases, including Embase, ProQuest, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. References from eligible studies were also considered. CHARTING
methodsData were extracted and categorised into competency domains through a standardised process. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction, with discrepancies resolved by consensus.
resultsA total of 34 studies were included in the review. Across five identified domains, 91 specific and 30 general competencies were categorised. Additionally, the review identified 29 types of peer-based interventions designed to support professionals following incidents or stressful situations.
conclusionsThe findings underscore the need for well-defined competencies for peer supporters of second victims, emphasising training in communication, emotional support and role-specific knowledge. Tailoring peer support programmes to the professional context and industry-specific characteristics is essential for providing effective assistance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.