ArticleBMC health services research2026
Evaluation of second victim experiences and support needs among physicians and nurses.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient safety aims to prevent medical errors and improve care quality; however, adverse events may also negatively affect the healthcare professionals involved. This phenomenon, known as second victimhood, is associated with psychological and professional consequences such as guilt, burnout, and trauma symptoms. Evidence from Türkiye remains limited. This study aimed to assess second victimhood experiences among physicians and nurses, examine associated impacts, and identify support needs.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in October 2023 among physicians and nurses working at a tertiary university hospital in Türkiye. The entire target population was approached, and 366 participants were included. Data were collected using a sociodemographic questionnaire and the Turkish version of the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (T-SVEST). Descriptive analyses, group comparisons, correlation analyses, internal consistency analyses, and multivariable binary logistic regression were performed.
resultsAmong the participants, 66.9% were female; 45.9% were nurses and 42.1% were resident physicians. Second victimhood was reported by 15.0% of participants, and 75.9% of those with valid responses reported negative consequences. In bivariate analyses, second victimhood differed according to age group, professional/occupational title, and years of employment at the current institution. In the multivariable model, age ≥ 46 years (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 5.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.97-14.06) and employment at the current institution for 2-5 years (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.43-5.56) remained independently associated with second victimhood. Most participants reported high preferences for structured institutional support, including peer and managerial support, opportunities for recovery, and access to psychological counseling.
conclusionSecond victimhood was reported by a notable minority of physicians and nurses. The findings suggest that patient safety approaches should also consider the psychosocial well-being of healthcare professionals. Structured, accessible, confidential, and non-punitive post-event support mechanisms may help institutions respond more effectively to second victim experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42920132What 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.