Skip to main content

Table 6 Rating of support strategies by participants with and without experience(s) of second victim incidents

From: Prevalence of second victims, risk factors and support strategies among young German physicians in internal medicine (SeViD-I survey)

Support strategy

(n = 13)

No second victims

(n = 204)

Second victims

(n = 287)

p (Chi2)

Rated rather or very helpful

Rated rather not or not helpful

Rated rather or very helpful

Rated rather not or not helpful

% (n)

% (n)

% (n)

% (n)

1. Immediate time out to recover

69 (140)

24 (48)

62 (179)

34 (97)

0.11

2. Access to counselling including psychological/psychiatric services

88 (180)

7 (15)

81 (232)

15 (44)

< 0.01

3. Opportunity to discuss emotional and ethical issues

92 (188)

6 (13)

93 (265)

6 (16)

0.22

4. Clear information about processes (e.g. root cause analysis, incident reporting)

88 (179)

10 (20)

85 (246)

13 (37)

0.41

5. Formal peer to peer support

78 (160)

19 (39)

82 (237)

15 (43)

0.38

6. Informal emotional support

77 (158)

17 (35)

84 (240)

12 (33)

0.18

7. Prompt debriefing/crisis intervention

91 (186)

8 (16)

95 (271)

4 (10)

0.11

8. Supportive guidance for continuing clinical duties

83 (169)

13 (26)

81 (235)

13 (38)

0.57

9. Help communicate with patients

77 (157)

18 (37)

82 (235)

15 (43)

0.10

10. Clear guidance about the roles to be expected after the incident

71 (144)

26 (54)

76 (219)

16 (47)

0.08

11. Help to actively participate to work through this incident

82 (169)

12 (24)

87 (248)

9 (26)

0.02

12. Safe opportunity to contribute insights to prevent similar events in future

90 (182)

7 (14)

92 (265)

6 (16)

0.72

13. Opportunity to seek for legal advice after an incident

95 (199)

3 (5)

86 (249)

8 (23)

0.04

  1. Assessment of 13 support strategies by 287 s victims and 204 others. For analysis of unequal distribution Chi2 tests were applied. Missing % to 100 belong to the option “I cannot judge this”, which is not shown in the table