MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406778204 · doi:10.1097/wno.0000000000002319

When We Make Errors and Do Harm: A Narrative Review of Second Victim Syndrome and Implications for Neuro-Ophthalmologists

2025· review· en· W4406778204 on OpenAlexaff
David Rabinovitch, Lindsey B. Delott, Edward Margolin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuro-Ophthalmology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmSpecialtyOpenness to experienceMedicineHealth carePatient safetyPsychologyNursingPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the aftermath of an adverse event, the first priority is to provide care for the patient, known as the first victim . However, the experiences of healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in these events, known as "second victims", have been largely overlooked. This review aims to consolidate existing knowledge on second victim syndrome (SVS), explore its unique implications for neuro-ophthalmologists, and suggest support strategies to increase awareness and meet the needs of affected colleagues. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, analyzing peer-reviewed articles and reports on SVS across medical specialties. The review focused on the prevalence, risk factors, outcomes, and strategies for addressing SVS at both the individual and system-wide levels. RESULTS: SVS is alarmingly prevalent among HCPs, with estimates ranging from 10% to 43%, and nearly half of all HCPs are expected to experience SVS at least once in their careers. Although direct evidence is lacking, neuro-ophthalmologists may be particularly vulnerable due to the complexity of their patients, frequent diagnostic challenges, and the risk of poor outcomes. Effective coping strategies include peer support at the institutional level, with an urgent need for healthcare systems to transition toward a "Just Culture" that fosters openness and collective learning. CONCLUSIONS: Neuro-ophthalmologists are likely among several specialty fields suffering in silence following medical errors. To reduce these errors and optimize patient care, we must focus on enhancing support for the physicians involved. Sustainable improvements in healthcare require both targeted clinician support and comprehensive system-level changes to foster resilience and improve quality of care. Key efforts should include formal peer support programs, targeted educational initiatives, and a deliberate shift toward a "Just Culture." These initiatives are essential for fostering clinician resilience, promoting effective recovery, and ultimately improving the broader healthcare system and quality of care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.335 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuro-OphthalmologySame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207