Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Suffering in silence: a qualitative study of second victims of adverse events

Open access
Ullström, Susanne, Andreen Sachs, Magna, Hansson, Johan, Øvretveit, John, Brommels, Mats·2014·BMJ Quality & Safety

Abstract

Introduction: The term ‘second victim’ refers to the healthcare professional who experiences emotional distress following an adverse event. This distress has been shown to be similar to that of the patient—the ‘first victim’. The aim of this study was to investigate how healthcare professionals are affected by their involvement in adverse events with emphasis on the organisational support they need and how well the organisation meets those needs. Methods: 21 healthcare professionals at a Swedish university hospital who each had experienced an adverse event were interviewed. Data from semi-structured interviews were analysed by qualitative content analysis using QSR NVivo software for coding and categorisation. Results: Our findings confirm earlier studies showing that emotional distress, often long-lasting, follows from adverse events. In addition, we report that the impact on the healthcare professional was related to the organisation’s response to the event. Most informants lacked organisational support or they received support that was unstructured and unsystematic. Further, the formal investigation seldom provided adequate and timely feedback to those involved. The insufficient support and lack of feedback made it more difficult to emotionally process the event and reach closure. Discussion: This article addresses the gap between the second victim's need for organisational support and the organisational support provided. It also highlights the need for more transparency in the investigation of adverse events. Future research should address how advanced support structures can meet these needs and provide learning opportunities for the organisation. These issues are central for all hospital managers and policy makers who wish to prevent and manage adverse events and to promote a positive safety culture.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002035

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
Ullström, S., Andreen Sachs, M., Hansson, J., Øvretveit, J., & Brommels, M.
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-11-15
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
325-331
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W2124253501
Cited by
340
References
4
FWCI
22.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Suffering in silence: a qualitative study of second victims of adverse events. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002035
The paper
Ullström, S., Andreen Sachs, M., Hansson, J., Øvretveit, J., & Brommels, M. (2014). Suffering in silence: a qualitative study of second victims of adverse events. BMJ Quality & Safety. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002035

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.