MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790165519 · doi:10.5430/jha.v7n2p23

The need and availability of support systems for physicians involved in a serious adverse event

2018· article· en· W2790165519 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Esther H.M. Leferink, Aline Bos, Martijn P. Heringa, Elizabeth L. J. van Rensen, Dorien Zwart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Thematic analysisPatient safetyQuality (philosophy)Health carePleaMedicinePsychologyNursingSupervisorEvent (particle physics)Medical educationQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Serious adverse events occur in healthcare, and do not solely have consequences for patients (first victims), but also affect physicians involved (second victims). These second victims experience diminished emotional well-being and less professional performance. An increasing number of hospitals organize support for second victims, although scientific evidence on the kind of support that is expected and needed is poor. This study therefore investigates support needs after serious adverse events from both personal (physicians) and organizational (quality and safety staff members) perspectives.Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews in a Dutch university medical center. Physicians (N = 19) who had been directly involved in a serious adverse event participated. In addition, quality and safety staff members (N = 3) reflected on the support needs as expressed by physicians. Verbatim transcripts were three-fold coded, which led to several themes for our inductive thematic analysis.Results: Contrary to recent developments in healthcare organizations, participants did not plea for a hospital-wide support team. Acceptance of the emotional and professional impact of an adverse event by direct colleagues and supervisors is more important. Where such a cultural context is provided, physicians prefer support of a close and reliable colleague to cope with emotions and doubts, a supervisor who monitors recovery, and a healthcare organization that provides information about required procedures to learn from the events. However, this ideal was seldom found in the competitive working environment. This underlines the need for a shift from a competitive professional culture into a more supportive one.Conclusions: Ideally, direct colleagues support each other after an adverse event. This form of collegial support can only be successful if there is general acceptance of healthcare professionals’ vulnerability and their support needs within the direct working environment. To create the right circumstances to meet these support needs, both healthcare professionals and hospital organizations have to recognize and take their responsibilities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207