ArticlePloS one2026
Repercussions of the second victim phenomenon on health care workers: Scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient safety is a key pillar of healthcare services and the quality of care provided. Despite ongoing efforts, safety incidents still occur, resulting in victims beyond the patient. The healthcare professionals involved are considered second victims, warranting studies in the field of worker safety.
objectiveTo map the repercussions experienced by healthcare professionals who have experienced the "second victim" phenomenon resulting from patient safety incidents in healthcare services.
methodA scoping review guided by the JBI and PRISMA-ScR methodologies. A preliminary search was conducted, finding no evidence of existing records or publications with the same objective. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Foundation platform. The search strategy followed the three recommended steps. The databases consulted were MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, WOS, LILACS, and, for gray literature, the Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations and ProQuest. There were no restrictions on language, year, or methodology; the PCC mnemonic was used as an eligibility criterion: population-healthcare professionals; concept-second victim phenomenon related to patient safety incidents; context-healthcare services. Studies that did not meet the objective and PCC criteria were excluded. The selection and data extraction were performed by independent researchers and conducted anonymously.
resultsOf the 2,129 records retrieved, 37 publications comprised the final sample. The publications were collected between 2009 and 2024 and were identified in 22 countries across five continents. There was a predominance of publications from Europe (n = 12), with qualitative studies being the most common (n = 14); the hospital setting was the most frequently cited (n = 25), and nursing was the most studied population (n = 27). The most frequently cited health descriptors were "second victims" (n = 17) and "adverse events" (n = 14). Of the selected studies, 13 used measurement instruments to identify the phenomenon. Thirty-nine repercussions were mapped, categorized from the perspective of worker health in physical, mental, professional and social dimensions based on the study's assumptions. The professional dimension presented the highest number of repercussions. The mental dimension identified suicidal thoughts or behavio as a risk to physical integrity.
conclusionThe repercussions indicate a strong relationship between the second victim phenomenon and worker health and safety, impacting the professional and personal lives of the professionals involved.
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.