Search

A culture of safety is important for the delivery of safe, high-quality care, as well as for healthcare providers' wellbeing. This systematic review aimed to describe and synthesize the literature on patient safety attitudes of the next generation of healthcare workers (health professional students, new graduates, newly registered health professionals, resident trainees) and assess potential differences in this population related to years of study, specialties, and gender. We screened four electronic databases up to 20 February 2020 and additional sources, including weekly e-mailed search alerts up to 18 October 2020. Two independent reviewers conducted the search, study selection, quality rating, data extraction, and formal narrative synthesis, involving a third reviewer in case of dissent. We retrieved 6606 records, assessed 188 full-texts, and included 31 studies. Across articles, healthcare students and young professionals showed overwhelmingly positive patient safety attitudes in some areas (e.g., teamwork climate, error inevitability) but more negative perceptions in other domains (e.g., safety climate, disclosure responsibility). Women tend to report more positive attitudes. To improve safety culture in medical settings, health professions educators and institutions should ensure education and training on patient safety.

Given the negative impact of adverse events on the wellbeing of healthcare providers, easy access to psychological support is crucial. We aimed to describe the types of support resources available in healthcare organizations, their benefits for second victims, peer supporters' experiences, and implementation challenges. We also explored how these resources incorporate aspects of Safety I and Safety II. We searched six databases up to 19 December 2019 and additional literature, including weekly search alerts until 21 January 2021. Two reviewers independently performed all methodological steps (search, selection, quality assessment, data extraction, formal narrative synthesis). The 16 included studies described 12 second victim support resources, implemented between 2006 and 2017. Preliminary data indicated beneficial effects not only for the affected staff but also for the peer responders who considered their role to be challenging but gratifying. Challenges during program implementation included persistent blame culture, limited awareness of program availability, and lack of financial resources. Common goals of the support programs (e.g., fostering coping strategies, promoting individual resilience) are consistent with Safety II and may promote system resilience. Investing in second victim support structures should be a top priority for healthcare institutions adopting a systemic approach to safety and striving for just culture.

In light of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and potential future infectious disease outbreaks, a comprehensive understanding of the negative effects of epidemics and pandemics on healthcare workers' mental health could inform appropriate support interventions. Thus, we aimed to synthesize and quantify the psychological and psychosomatic symptoms among frontline medical staff. We searched four databases up to March 19, 2020 and additional literature, with daily search alerts set up until October 26, 2020. Studies reporting psychological and/or psychosomatic symptoms of healthcare workers caring for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome, H1N1, Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome, or COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently conducted the search, study selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis and involved a third reviewer in case of disagreement. We used random effects modeling to estimate the overall prevalence rates of psychological/psychosomatic symptoms and the I2 statistic. We included 86 studies, reporting data from 75,991 participants. Frontline staff showed a wide range of symptoms, including concern about transmitting the virus to the family (60.39%, 95% CI 42.53-76.96), perceived stress (56.77%, 95% CI 34.21-77.95), concerns about own health (45.97%, 95% CI 31.08-61.23), sleeping difficulties (39.88%, 95% CI 27.70-52.72), burnout (31.81%, 95% CI 13.32-53.89), symptoms of depression (25.72%, 95% CI 18.34-33.86), symptoms of anxiety (25.36%, 95% CI 17.90-33.64), symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (24.51%, 95% CI 18.16-31.46), mental health issues (23.11%, 95% CI 15.98-31.10), and symptoms of somatization (14.68%, 95% CI 10.67-19.18). We found consistent evidence for the pervasive and profound impact of large-scale outbreaks on the mental health of frontline healthcare workers. As the CO-VID-19 crisis continues to unfold, guaranteeing easy access to support structures for the entire healthcare workforce is vitally important., (© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objectives: Despite growing interest in the second-victim phenomenon and greater awareness of its consequences, there has not been a meta-analysis quantifying the negative impact of adverse events on providers involved in adverse events. This study systematically reviewed the types and prevalence of psychological and psychosomatic symptoms among second victims., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of nine electronic databases up to February 2017, without restrictions to publication date or language, examining also additional sources (e.g., gray literature, volumes of journals). Two reviewers performed the search, selection process, quality assessment, data extraction, and synthesis. We resolved disagreements by consensus and/or involving a third reviewer. Quantitative studies on the prevalence of psychological and psychosomatic symptoms of second victims were eligible for inclusion. We used random effects modeling to calculate the overall prevalence rates and the I statistic., Results: Of 7210 records retrieved, 98 potentially relevant studies were identified. Full-text evaluation led to a final selection of 18 studies, based on the reports of 11,649 healthcare providers involved in adverse events. The most prevalent symptoms were troubling memories (81%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 46-95), anxiety/concern (76%, 95% CI = 33-95), anger toward themselves (75%, 95% CI = 59-86), regret/remorse (72%, 95% CI = 62-81), distress (70%, 95% CI = 60-79), fear of future errors (56%, 95% CI = 34-75), embarrassment (52%, 95% CI = 31-72), guilt (51%, 95% CI = 41-62), and sleeping difficulties (35%, 95% CI = 22-51)., Conclusions: Second victims report a high prevalence and wide range of psychological symptoms. More than two-thirds of providers reported troubling memories, anxiety, anger, remorse, and distress. Preventive and therapeutic programs should aim to decrease second victims' emotional distress.

Objectives: Despite the critical need to understand the diverse responses by second victims to adverse events, there has not been a meta-analysis examining coping by second victims. We aimed to analyze the coping strategies applied by second victims in the aftermath of adverse events., Methods: We performed a systematic search of nine electronic databases up to October 2018 and screened additional sources, such as gray databases. Two independent reviewers conducted the search, selection process, quality appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis. In case of dissent, a third reviewer was involved to reach consensus. Quantitative studies of the frequency with which coping strategies were applied by second victims were eligible for inclusion. We calculated the overall frequency of coping strategies and I statistic using random effects modeling., Results: Of 10,705 records retrieved, 111 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 14 studies eventually included. The five most frequent coping strategies were Changing work attitude (89%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 80-94), Following policies and guidelines more accurately and closely (89%, 95% CI = 54-98), Paying more attention to detail (89%, 95% CI = 78-94) (task oriented), Problem-solving/concrete action plan (77%, 95% CI = 59-89) (task oriented), and Criticizing or lecturing oneself (74%, 95% CI = 47-90) (emotion oriented)., Conclusions: Second victims frequently used task- and emotion-oriented coping strategies and, to a lesser degree, avoidance-oriented strategies. To better support second victims and ensure patient safety, coping strategies should be evaluated considering the positive and negative effects on the clinician's personal and professional well-being, relationships with patients, and the quality and safety of healthcare.

Background: Given the automatization of care and rationing of time and staff due to economic imperatives, often resulting in dehumanized care, the concept of 'humanization of care' has been increasingly discussed in the scientific literature. However, it is still an indistinct concept, lacking well-defined dimensions and to date no literature review has tried to capture it., Objectives: The objectives of this systematic review were to identify the key elements of humanization of care by investigating stakeholders' (patients, patients' caregivers, healthcare providers) perspectives and to assess barriers and strategies for its implementation., Methods: We carried out a systematic search of five electronic databases up to December 2017 as well as examining additional sources (e.g., gray literature). Search terms included "humanization/humanisation of care" and "dehumanization/dehumanisation of care". We conducted a thematic synthesis of the extracted study findings to identify descriptive themes and produce key elements., Results: Of 1327 records retrieved, 14 full-text articles were included in the review. Three main areas (relational, organizational, structural) and 30 key elements (e.g., relationship bonding, holistic approach, adequate working conditions) emerged. Several barriers to implementation of humanization of care exist in all areas., Conclusion: Our systematic review and synthesis contributes to a deeper understanding of the concept of humanization of care. The proposed key elements are expected to serve as preliminary guidance for healthcare institutions aiming to overcome challenges in various forms and achieve humanized and efficient care. Future studies need to fully examine specific practices of humanized care and test quantitatively their effectiveness by examining psychosocial and health outcomes.

Background: In the last years, patients' empowerment has been increasingly recognized as a crucial dimension of patient-centered healthcare and patient safety. Nevertheless, little work has been done so far in the field of patient safety to investigate strategies for empowering psychiatric patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify, by using focus groups, whether and how psychiatric patients' empowerment can improve risk management according to the perspective of healthcare providers (HPs)., Methods: A mixed-method approach composed of a qualitative data collection method (i.e., focus groups) and a quantitative analysis technique (i.e., inductive content analysis) was applied. HPs working in mental health settings shared their perspectives on psychiatric patients' empowerment in risk management. After the transcription of the audio-taped discussions and the subsequent development of a hierarchical four-level coding system (strategy versus critical issue, thematic area, category, subcategory), two independent raters codified the transcripts and synthesized the content. Absolute frequencies are reported for quantitative data., Results: Twelve focus groups consisting of six to ten participants, each with an overall sample size of 95 participants (65 women; average age ± SD 47 ± 9 yrs), were enrolled. A total of 1252 participants' verbal contributions (i.e., units of analysis) were assessed. Strategies and critical issues (Level 1) were mentioned almost equally (52 and 48%, respectively) by the HPs. Most of the contributions at Level 2 referred to the thematic areas Treatment and Cure (69%) and Emergency Management (21%). In the area Treatment and Cure, the category Therapeutic Compliance (Level 3) was discussed in one third of all contributions., Conclusions: Our results suggest that HPs consider patients as crucial partners in risk management and expect them to play a key role in actively enhancing safety. Policy makers should be aware that risk management in mental health settings particularly relies on the therapeutic relationship between HPs and patients. Therefore, allocating sufficient human and financial resources to mental health care aiming to further support the relationship between patients and HPs is of utmost importance.

A multicenter cross-sectional survey study involving four Italian University Hospitals was performed to test the hypothesis that negative affect and positive affect (affective dimensions) mediate the association between risk perception (perceived risk of infection and death; cognitive dimensions) and the feeling of work exhaustion (WE) among obstetrics healthcare providers (HCPs) during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Totally, 570 obstetrics HCPs were invited to complete the 104-item IPSICO survey in May 2020. A theoretical model built on the tested hypothesis was investigated by structural equation modelling. The model explained 32.2% of the WE variance. Only negative affect mediated the association between cognitive dimensions and WE and also the association between WE and psychological well-being before the pandemic, experiences of stressful events, female gender, and dysfunctional coping. Non-mediated associations with WE were observed for work perceived as a duty, experience of stressful events, support received by colleagues, and the shift strategy. Only previous psychological well-being, support by colleagues, and shift strategies were inversely associated with WE. Based on study results, monitoring negative than positive affect appears superior in predicting WE, with practical implications for planning psychological interventions in HCPs at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels.