兽医麻醉中第二受害者的支持结构评估:基于国际调查的见解-第2部分。

IF 1.9 2区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Luiz Cp Santos, Michelle McArthur, Nigel Perkins, Wendy Goodwin
{"title":"兽医麻醉中第二受害者的支持结构评估:基于国际调查的见解-第2部分。","authors":"Luiz Cp Santos, Michelle McArthur, Nigel Perkins, Wendy Goodwin","doi":"10.1016/j.vaa.2025.03.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the availability, quality, and desired forms of support structures for veterinary anaesthesia professionals following patient safety incidents (PSIs).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This cross-sectional online survey invited veterinary anaesthetists, anaesthetists in training and veterinary nurses/technicians to participate between June and September 2023. Colleague, supervisor, institutional, and non-work-related support responses were assessed using validated subscales adapted from the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 303 participants from 31 countries completed the survey. Overall, one-quarter of respondents (25.3%) admitted that they never discuss PSIs in their department, with 35.3% perceiving the culture during morbidity and mortality meetings as negative. Nearly half of respondents (48%) perceived the level of support within the anaesthesia department negatively. Immediate critical incident debriefing ('hot debrief') was utilised by 37.7% of respondents, with 53.6% of those discussing only the facts of the incidents. About 67.5% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed finding relief in discussing incidents with colleagues, and an equal proportion felt supported by these colleagues in maintaining their professional self-esteem. A significant concern was raised about how supervisors respond to incidents, with 26.5% of respondents feeling that supervisors tended to blame individuals after PSIs. Furthermore, 55.9% agreed or strongly agreed feeling that their organisation offers inadequate resources for recovery and 52% perceived a lack of concern for well-being in their organisation. Collegial and organisational support were regarded as poor by 7% and 34.2% of the respondents, respectively. Desired forms of support included: a respected peer for discussion (86.3%) and a peaceful location for recovery (70.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical relevance: </strong>This study identified gaps in support structures for veterinary anaesthesia professionals, particularly in organisational resources for recovery following PSIs. While some support elements were perceived positively, areas for improvement include enhancing accessible and timely support measures to promote well-being and professional self-esteem.</p>","PeriodicalId":23626,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of support structures for second victims in veterinary anaesthesia: building on insights from an international survey - Part 2.\",\"authors\":\"Luiz Cp Santos, Michelle McArthur, Nigel Perkins, Wendy Goodwin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.vaa.2025.03.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the availability, quality, and desired forms of support structures for veterinary anaesthesia professionals following patient safety incidents (PSIs).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This cross-sectional online survey invited veterinary anaesthetists, anaesthetists in training and veterinary nurses/technicians to participate between June and September 2023. Colleague, supervisor, institutional, and non-work-related support responses were assessed using validated subscales adapted from the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 303 participants from 31 countries completed the survey. Overall, one-quarter of respondents (25.3%) admitted that they never discuss PSIs in their department, with 35.3% perceiving the culture during morbidity and mortality meetings as negative. Nearly half of respondents (48%) perceived the level of support within the anaesthesia department negatively. Immediate critical incident debriefing ('hot debrief') was utilised by 37.7% of respondents, with 53.6% of those discussing only the facts of the incidents. About 67.5% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed finding relief in discussing incidents with colleagues, and an equal proportion felt supported by these colleagues in maintaining their professional self-esteem. A significant concern was raised about how supervisors respond to incidents, with 26.5% of respondents feeling that supervisors tended to blame individuals after PSIs. Furthermore, 55.9% agreed or strongly agreed feeling that their organisation offers inadequate resources for recovery and 52% perceived a lack of concern for well-being in their organisation. Collegial and organisational support were regarded as poor by 7% and 34.2% of the respondents, respectively. Desired forms of support included: a respected peer for discussion (86.3%) and a peaceful location for recovery (70.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical relevance: </strong>This study identified gaps in support structures for veterinary anaesthesia professionals, particularly in organisational resources for recovery following PSIs. While some support elements were perceived positively, areas for improvement include enhancing accessible and timely support measures to promote well-being and professional self-esteem.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23626,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaa.2025.03.016\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaa.2025.03.016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估兽医麻醉专业人员在患者安全事件(PSIs)后支持结构的可得性、质量和期望形式。研究设计:这项横断面在线调查邀请兽医麻醉师、培训麻醉师和兽医护士/技术人员在2023年6月至9月期间参与。同事、主管、机构和与工作无关的支持反应使用来自第二受害者经验和支持工具的有效子量表进行评估。结果:共有来自31个国家的303名参与者完成了调查。总体而言,四分之一的受访者(25.3%)承认他们从未在自己的部门讨论psi, 35.3%的人认为发病率和死亡率会议期间的文化是消极的。近一半的受访者(48%)对麻醉科内部的支持水平持负面看法。37.7%的受访者使用紧急事件汇报(hot debriefing),其中53.6%的受访者只讨论事件的事实。约67.5%的受访者同意或非常同意在与同事讨论事件时寻求解脱,而同样比例的受访者认为这些同事支持他们维护职业自尊。一个重要的问题是主管如何应对事件,26.5%的受访者认为主管倾向于在psi之后责怪个人。此外,55.9%的人同意或强烈同意他们的组织为康复提供的资源不足,52%的人认为他们的组织缺乏对福祉的关注。分别有7%和34.2%的受访者认为大学和组织的支持较差。期望的支持形式包括:一个受人尊敬的同伴讨论(86.3%)和一个安静的地方恢复(70.5%)。结论和临床相关性:本研究确定了兽医麻醉专业人员支持结构的差距,特别是在psi后恢复的组织资源方面。虽然一些支助因素被认为是积极的,但需要改进的领域包括加强可获得和及时的支助措施,以促进福利和专业自尊。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of support structures for second victims in veterinary anaesthesia: building on insights from an international survey - Part 2.

Objective: To evaluate the availability, quality, and desired forms of support structures for veterinary anaesthesia professionals following patient safety incidents (PSIs).

Study design: This cross-sectional online survey invited veterinary anaesthetists, anaesthetists in training and veterinary nurses/technicians to participate between June and September 2023. Colleague, supervisor, institutional, and non-work-related support responses were assessed using validated subscales adapted from the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool.

Results: A total of 303 participants from 31 countries completed the survey. Overall, one-quarter of respondents (25.3%) admitted that they never discuss PSIs in their department, with 35.3% perceiving the culture during morbidity and mortality meetings as negative. Nearly half of respondents (48%) perceived the level of support within the anaesthesia department negatively. Immediate critical incident debriefing ('hot debrief') was utilised by 37.7% of respondents, with 53.6% of those discussing only the facts of the incidents. About 67.5% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed finding relief in discussing incidents with colleagues, and an equal proportion felt supported by these colleagues in maintaining their professional self-esteem. A significant concern was raised about how supervisors respond to incidents, with 26.5% of respondents feeling that supervisors tended to blame individuals after PSIs. Furthermore, 55.9% agreed or strongly agreed feeling that their organisation offers inadequate resources for recovery and 52% perceived a lack of concern for well-being in their organisation. Collegial and organisational support were regarded as poor by 7% and 34.2% of the respondents, respectively. Desired forms of support included: a respected peer for discussion (86.3%) and a peaceful location for recovery (70.5%).

Conclusions and clinical relevance: This study identified gaps in support structures for veterinary anaesthesia professionals, particularly in organisational resources for recovery following PSIs. While some support elements were perceived positively, areas for improvement include enhancing accessible and timely support measures to promote well-being and professional self-esteem.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia
Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
17.60%
发文量
91
审稿时长
97 days
期刊介绍: Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia is the official journal of the Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists, the American College of Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia and the European College of Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia. Its purpose is the publication of original, peer reviewed articles covering all branches of anaesthesia and the relief of pain in animals. Articles concerned with the following subjects related to anaesthesia and analgesia are also welcome: the basic sciences; pathophysiology of disease as it relates to anaesthetic management equipment intensive care chemical restraint of animals including laboratory animals, wildlife and exotic animals welfare issues associated with pain and distress education in veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia. Review articles, special articles, and historical notes will also be published, along with editorials, case reports in the form of letters to the editor, and book reviews. There is also an active correspondence section.
×
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