ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2026
Obstetric sonographers' second victim experiences following diagnostic error: implications for wellbeing, support and patient safety.
Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2026. 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.
- Supporting obstetric sonographers following diagnostic error: Evidence-informed interventions to promote well-being, learning and patient safety.Ultrasound (Leeds, England) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Diagnostic errors in obstetric ultrasound can have devastating consequences for mothers and babies. While patients are the primary victims, healthcare professionals involved may experience psychological harm as 'second victims'. Obstetric sonographers work in high-risk environments where diagnostic errors can occur; however, their experiences and perceptions of support are underexplored. This study investigated sonographers' experiences following diagnostic error, focusing on perceived support. Methods: This qualitative study used a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design within an abductive pragmatic approach. A survey (n = 8) provided context but was limited for quantitative analysis; therefore, qualitative findings are reported. Eight obstetric sonographers with experience of diagnostic error were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely, transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Rigour was enhanced through reflexivity, audit trails and supervisory review. Findings: Five themes were identified. Participants described experiences consistent with the second victim phenomenon, including emotional distress, loss of confidence, burnout and trauma-like symptoms. While strong professional pride was evident, high workload and emotional demands were emphasised. Unique challenges included delayed awareness of error, caring for both mother and baby and lack of opportunity for apology or closure. Peer support was valued most, while managerial and organisational support was often perceived as inadequate or procedural. Participants called for learning-orientated, just cultures. Conclusion: Obstetric sonographers experience substantial psychological impact following diagnostic error, shaped by emotional and organisational factors. Greater recognition and trauma-informed, learning-focused support systems are needed to promote wellbeing, patient safety and workforce sustainability.
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.