Second Victim Syndrome Among Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review of Interventions and Outcomes.

IF 3.8 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Journal of Healthcare Leadership Pub Date : 2025-06-03 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JHL.S526565
Timothy Sheng Khai Ong, Celeste Natasha Goh, Erel Kane Yun En Tan, Kavin Abimanyu Sivanathan, Ansel Shao Pin Tang, Hiang Khoon Tan, Qin Xiang Ng
{"title":"Second Victim Syndrome Among Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review of Interventions and Outcomes.","authors":"Timothy Sheng Khai Ong, Celeste Natasha Goh, Erel Kane Yun En Tan, Kavin Abimanyu Sivanathan, Ansel Shao Pin Tang, Hiang Khoon Tan, Qin Xiang Ng","doi":"10.2147/JHL.S526565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Second Victim Syndrome (SVS) refers to the significant emotional and psychological distress experienced by healthcare professionals following adverse patient events. While numerous interventions have been developed to support second victims, their effectiveness remains poorly understood. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the evidence on the outcomes of available interventions targeting SVS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases, covering all records up to July 7, 2024. We included studies that evaluated the impact of SVS interventions on psychological, professional, and institutional outcomes. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. Due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures, we opted for a narrative synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen studies were included, predominantly of moderate quality. Peer support programs were the most commonly implemented interventions, often structured around the Scott Three-Tiered Model. These programs demonstrated consistent short-term benefits, such as reduced emotional distress and perceived isolation. However, evidence for long-term outcomes-including professional resilience, burnout reduction, and retention-was mixed and generally of low certainty. Structured psychological interventions, including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based programs, showed more promising long-term results but remain underexplored. Standardized outcome measures, such as the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST), were infrequently used, limiting comparability across studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SVS interventions, particularly peer support, offer short-term relief but limited long-term impact. There is a critical need for longitudinal research using standardized outcome measures to better evaluate effectiveness. This review highlights the need for system-wide, evidence-based interventions and standardized evaluation metrics to support healthcare professionals effectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":44346,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Leadership","volume":"17 ","pages":"225-239"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12145115/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Healthcare Leadership","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JHL.S526565","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Second Victim Syndrome (SVS) refers to the significant emotional and psychological distress experienced by healthcare professionals following adverse patient events. While numerous interventions have been developed to support second victims, their effectiveness remains poorly understood. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the evidence on the outcomes of available interventions targeting SVS.

Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases, covering all records up to July 7, 2024. We included studies that evaluated the impact of SVS interventions on psychological, professional, and institutional outcomes. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. Due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures, we opted for a narrative synthesis.

Results: Fifteen studies were included, predominantly of moderate quality. Peer support programs were the most commonly implemented interventions, often structured around the Scott Three-Tiered Model. These programs demonstrated consistent short-term benefits, such as reduced emotional distress and perceived isolation. However, evidence for long-term outcomes-including professional resilience, burnout reduction, and retention-was mixed and generally of low certainty. Structured psychological interventions, including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based programs, showed more promising long-term results but remain underexplored. Standardized outcome measures, such as the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST), were infrequently used, limiting comparability across studies.

Conclusion: SVS interventions, particularly peer support, offer short-term relief but limited long-term impact. There is a critical need for longitudinal research using standardized outcome measures to better evaluate effectiveness. This review highlights the need for system-wide, evidence-based interventions and standardized evaluation metrics to support healthcare professionals effectively.

Abstract Image

医疗保健专业人员中的第二受害者综合征:干预措施和结果的系统回顾。
背景:第二受害者综合征(SVS)是指医疗保健专业人员在不良患者事件后经历的显著情绪和心理困扰。虽然已经制定了许多干预措施来支持第二受害者,但对其有效性仍然知之甚少。本系统综述旨在综合针对SVS的现有干预措施结果的证据。方法:系统检索MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库,涵盖截至2024年7月7日的所有记录。我们纳入了评估SVS干预对心理、专业和机构结果影响的研究。我们使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)关键评估工具评估纳入研究的质量,并使用GRADE框架评估证据的确定性。由于研究设计和结果测量的异质性,我们选择了叙事综合。结果:纳入了15项研究,以中等质量为主。同伴支持计划是最常用的干预措施,通常围绕斯科特三层模型构建。这些项目显示出持续的短期效益,例如减少情绪困扰和感知孤立。然而,长期结果的证据——包括职业恢复力、倦怠减少和留任——好坏参半,而且通常不太确定。结构化的心理干预,包括认知行为疗法(CBT)和基于正念的项目,显示出更有希望的长期结果,但仍未得到充分探索。标准化的结果测量,如第二次受害者经历和支持工具(SVEST),很少使用,限制了研究之间的可比性。结论:SVS干预措施,特别是同伴支持,提供短期缓解,但长期影响有限。迫切需要进行纵向研究,使用标准化的结果测量来更好地评估有效性。本综述强调需要全系统的、基于证据的干预措施和标准化的评估指标来有效地支持卫生保健专业人员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Healthcare Leadership
Journal of Healthcare Leadership HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
2.30%
发文量
27
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Efficient and successful modern healthcare depends on a growing group of professionals working together as an interdisciplinary team. However, many forces shape the delivery of healthcare; changes are being driven by the markets, transformations in concepts of health and wellbeing, technology and research and discovery. Dynamic leadership will guide these necessary transformations. The Journal of Healthcare Leadership is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on leadership for the healthcare professions. The publication strives to amalgamate current and future healthcare professionals and managers by providing key insights into leadership progress and challenges to improve patient care. The journal aspires to inform key decision makers and those professionals with ambitions of leadership and management; it seeks to connect professionals who are engaged in similar endeavours and to provide wisdom from those working in other industries. Senior and trainee doctors, nurses and allied healthcare professionals, medical students, healthcare managers and allied leaders are invited to contribute to this publication
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信