ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
The impact of adverse patient events among German anesthesiologists : A cross-sectional survey on the second victim phenomenon (SeViD-X).
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leadership and Organizational Responses After Patient Safety Incidents: A Systematic Review of Second-Victim Outcomes and Evidence Gaps in Safety Behaviors.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Scenario-Related Anxiety, Self-Reported Critical Incidents, and Burnout Among Anesthesia Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Promoting mental health in intensive care unit onboarding: a consensus-based iterative development of a competency-based framework.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdverse patient events are an inevitable part of an anesthesiologist's work. When such incidents occur, they may lead to significant emotional and psychological distress in healthcare providers-a phenomenon known as the Second Victim Phenomenon (SVP). While international evidence of SVP exists, data from German anesthesiologists remain scarce.
objectiveThis study aimed to determine the prevalence, symptom severity, recovery time, and available support structures for second victims among German anesthesiologists and to identify individual and workplace-related risk and protective factors.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted using the validated SeViD questionnaire. The survey assessed five domains: demographics, SVP experience and symptoms, support structures, and personality traits (Big Five Inventory-10). Data were collected both online and on paper at three national anesthesiology symposia in Germany.
resultsOf the 408 respondents (mean age: 50.8 years), 76.9% identified as second victims, with 27% having experienced a related incident in the previous 12 months. Common triggers included patient harm or death, near misses, and critical events. The most frequently reported symptoms were self-doubt (69%), feelings of guilt (66%), reliving the event (59%), and sleep disturbances (59%). 16% of the respondents had not recovered at the time of the survey, and 14% had not recovered even after more than a year. Legal consultation, debriefing, and preventive feedback mechanisms were rated as the most helpful support strategies. A lack of support was significantly associated with increased symptom burden and prolonged recovery. A higher level of neuroticism and a lower level of openness were associated with increased symptom load.
conclusionsSVP is highly prevalent among German anesthesiologists, with a significant psychological burden in many cases. These findings highlight the urgent need for systematic interventions, including peer support and organizational frameworks, to address and mitigate the effects of SVP in clinical practice.
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.