Healthcare workers who find themselves entangled in unforeseen adverse patient events, medical errors, and/or patient-related injuries, experiencing trauma and victimization as a consequence of said incidents, are referred to as “second victims”.
Objectıve
This study aims to validate and assess the reliability of the Turkish version of the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool-Revised (SVEST-R).
Methods
The methodological and cross-sectional study involved 400 physicians and nurses in an Edirne tertiary hospital of Turkey. The Turkish SVEST-R and a questionnaire were administered, assessing validity through factor analysis and content validity, and reliability through item-total score correlation, internal consistency, and test-retest methods.
Results
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (0.84) and Bartlett Test (p < 0.001) indicated adequate sampling for factor analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis identified nine factors explaining 71.58% of total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed good fit (x2 = 976.95, x2/df = 2.3, CFI = 0.92, GFI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.05). Cronbach's alpha was 0.85, signifying high internal consistency. Healthcare professionals’ average T-SVEST-R score was 2.8 ± 0.5. Among independent variables, professional experience length significantly influenced T-SVEST-R score.
Conclusıons
The Turkish version of the Second Victim Experience Support Tool-Revised (T-SVEST-R) has been validated as a reliable scale.
YöntGH. Patient safety culture. Journal of Ege University Nursing Faculty2011; 27: 77–82.
2.
GökdoğanFYorgunS. Patient safety and nurses in health services. Journal of Anatolia Nursing and Health Sciences2010; 13: 53–59.
3.
StrametzRKochPVogelgesangA, et al.Prevalence of second victims, risk factors and support strategies among young German physicians in internal medicine (SeViD-I survey). J Occup Med Toxicol2021; 16: 11.
4.
WuAW. Medical error: the second victim. BMJ2000; 320: 726–727.
5.
SeysDScottSWuA, et al.Supporting involved health care professionals (second victims) following an adverse health event: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud2013; 50: 678–687.
6.
World Health Organization. WHO International Classification of Patient Safety. Technical Annex 2—Glossary of Patient Safety Concepts and References Version 1.1. January 2009. [cited 2022 January 9]. Available from: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/taxonomy/icps_technical_annex2.pdf.
7.
LaneMANewmanBMTaylorMZ, et al.Supporting clinicians after adverse events: development of a clinician peer support program. J. Patient Saf2018; 14: 56–60.
8.
MitchellISchusterALRSmithKC, et al.Patient safety incident reporting: a qualitative study of thoughts and perceptions of experts 15 years after ‘to err is human’. BMJ Qual. Saf2016; 25: 92–99.
9.
O’BeirneMSterlingPPalacios-DerflingherL, et al.Emotional impact of patient safety incidents on family physicians and their office staff. J. Am. Board Fam. Med2012; 25: 177–183.
10.
Mohamadi-BolbanabadAMoradiGPirooziB, et al.The second victims’ experience and related factors among medical staff. Int. J. Work. Health Manag2019; 12: 134–145.
11.
HarrisonRSharmaAWaltonM, et al.Responding to adverse patient safety events in Viet Nam. BMC Health Serv. Res2019; 19: 1–8.
12.
ScottSDHirschingerLECoxKR, et al.Caring for our own: deploying a systemwide second victim rapid response team. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf2010; 36: 233–240.
13.
SeysDWuAWVan GervenE, et al.Health care professionals as second victims after adverse events: a systematic review. Eval. Health Prof2013; 36: 135–162.
14.
EdreesH. Supporting Our Second Victim Colleagues: The Case for Peer Support Programs in Healthcare Kimberly Hiatt. Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2016.
15.
LanderLConnorJAShahRK, et al.Otolaryngologists’ responses to errors and adverse events. Laryngoscope2006; 116: 1114–1120.
16.
PintoAFaizOBicknellC,et al.Acute traumatic stress among surgeons after major surgical complications. Am. J. Surg2014; 208: 642–647.
17.
WatermanADGarbuttJHazelE, et al.The emotional impact of medical errors on practicing physicians in the United States and Canada. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf2007; 33: 467–476.
18.
BuschIMMorettiFCampagnaI, et al.Promoting the psychological well-being of healthcare providers facing the burden of adverse events: a systematic review of second victim support resources. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18: 17.
19.
PyoJChoiEYLeeW, et al.Physicians’ difficulties due to patient safety incidents in Korea: a cross-sectional study. J Korean Med Sci2020; 35: e118.
20.
LaueNSchwappachDHochreutenerM. “Second victim” - umgang mit der krise nach dem fehler. Ther Umsch Rev Ther2012; 69: 367–370.
21.
EdreesHHPaineLAFeroliER,et al.Health care workers as second victims of medical errors. Pol. Arch. Intern. Med2011; 121: 101–108.
22.
GazoniFMAmatoPEMalikZM,et al.The impact of perioperative catastrophes on anesthesiologists: results of a national survey. Anesth. Analg2012; 114: 596–603.
23.
BurlisonJDScottSDBrowneEK, et al.The second victim experience and support tool:validation of an organizational resource for assessing second victim effects and the quality of support resources. J. Patient Saf2017; 13: 93–102.
24.
KimEMKimSALeeJR, et al.Psychometric properties of Korean version of the second victim experience and support tool (K-SVEST). J. Patient Saf2018; 16: 179–186.
25.
ChenJYangQZhaoQ, et al.Psychometric validation of the Chinese version of the second victim experience and support tool (C-SVEST). J. Nurs. Manag2019; 27: 1416–1422.
26.
AjoudaniFHabibzadehHBaghaeiR. Second victim experience and support tool: Persian translation and psychometric characteristics evaluation. Int. Nurs. Rev2021; 68: 34–40.
27.
ScarpisERuscioEBianchetB, et al.Second victim experience and support tool: cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation in Italy. Eur. J. Public Health2020; 30: ckaa166.646.
28.
BrunelliMVEstradaSCelanoC. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of a second victim experience and support tool (SVEST). J. Patient Saf2021; 17: e1401–e1405.
29.
KnudsenTAbrahamsenCJørgensenJS,et al.Validation of the Danish version of the second victim experience and support tool. Scand. J. Public Health2022; 50: 497–506.
30.
KocaAElhanAHGençS, et al.Validation of the Turkish version of the second victim experience and Support Tool (T-SVEST). Heliyon2022; 8: e10553.
31.
Santana-DomínguezIGonzález-de la TorreHMartín-MartínezA. Cross-cultural adaptation to the Spanish context and evaluation of the content validity of the second victim experience and support tool (SVEST-E) questionnaire. Enferm. Clin2021; 31: 334–343.
32.
WinningAMMerandiJRauschJR, et al.Validation of the second victim experience and support tool-revised in the neonatal ıntensive care unit. J. Patient Saf2020; 17: 531–540.
33.
StrametzRSieboldBHeistermannP, et al.Validation of the German version of the second victim experience and support tool—revised. J. Patient Saf2022; 18: 182–192.
34.
Mohd KamaruzamanAZIbrahimMIMokhtarAM, et al.Translation and validation of the Malay revised second victim experience and support tool (M-SVEST-R) among healthcare workers in Kelantan, Malaysia. Int J Environ Res Public Health2022; 19: 2045.
35.
AyvatP. The second victim phenomenon experience of the anesthesia team: a focus group study. J Anesthesiol Reanim Spec Soc2023; 31: 118–127.
36.
OzekeOOzekeVCoskunO,et al.Second victims in health care: current perspectives. Advances in Medical Education and Practice2019; 10: 593–603.
37.
TavşancılE. Management of Attitudes and Data Analysis with SPSS. Ankara: Nobel Publication, 2010.
38.
Seçerİ. Psychological Test Development and Adaptation Process: SPSS and LISREL Applications. Ankara: Anı Publishing, 2015.
39.
ErkuşA. Measurement and Scale Development in Psychology. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing, 2012.
40.
SinghRMangatNS. Stratified sampling. In: elements of survey sampling. Kluwer Texts in the Mathematical Sciences1996; 15: 102–144.
LawsheCH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology1975; 28: 563–575.
43.
DavisLL. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res1992; 5: 194–197.
44.
WorthingtonRLWhittakerTA. Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist2006; 34: 806–838.
45.
GeorgeD. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update, 10/e: Pearson Education India; 2011.
46.
BuyukozturkS. The Data Analysis Handbook for Social Sciences. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Academy, 2023.
47.
BeaversASLounsburyJWRichards JenniferK, et al.Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Pract Assess Res Eval2013; 18: 6.
48.
HairJFBlackWCBabinBJ,et al.Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Vol. 7. New York, USA: Pearson,2009.
49.
TabachnickBGFidellLS. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education, 2014, pp.1055.
50.
ErkorkmazÜEtikanİDemirO, et al.Confirmatory factor analysis and fit indices: review. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences2013; 33: 210–223.
51.
YanLPTanJXChenH, et al.Experience and support of Chinese healthcare professionals as second victims of patient safety incidents: a cross-sectional study. Perspect Psychiatr Care2022; 58: 733–74311.
52.
MokWQChinGFYapSF,et al.A cross-sectional survey on nurses’ second victim experience and quality of support resources in Singapore. J Nurs Manag2020; 28: 286–293.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
