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.
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