Citations 1

Use of Revised Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST-R) in respiratory therapists involved in compassionate extubations

Respiratory Care Reports | July 25, 2026 | Volume: 2 | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1177/30682576261469108

Background Compassionate extubations (CEs) can be categorized as stressful clinical events that have potential to trigger a second victim response. The Second Victim Experience and Support Tool-Revised (SVEST-R) is a survey used by healthcare organizations to evaluate second victim experiences of their staff. The purpose of this study was to quantify the level of agreement among respiratory therapists (RTs) who participate in CEs resulting in the perception of being a second victim, as well as various desired forms of support. Methods The study employed a cross-sectional, non-experimental survey design. The SVEST-R was disseminated via an anonymous electronic survey posted to a private social media site for RTs. Data analysis included descriptive statistics for demographic variables, exploratory factor analysis, measures of reliability for the SVEST-R instrument, and comparison of responses across demographic variables. Results There were 146 survey responses. The majority of respondents were female (92%), between the ages of 25–40 (49%), had between 11 and 20 years of RT experience (27%), and practiced primarily in adult critical care (87%). Up to 51.4% of the sample reported that physical distress had occurred due to participation in CEs. The majority of respondents (80.8%) agree that colleague support is present. There was general agreement that supervisor (>60%) and organization (>50%) support are present. Perception of professional self-efficacy was preserved, and resilience remained high for the majority of RTs in this sample. There was general disagreement that involvement in CEs resulted in absenteeism from work or turnover intentions. The most frequently desired form of support was a peaceful location to recover and recompose after the event (85.8%). Conclusions RTs experience marginal yet meaningful distress as a result of participating in CEs. Respondents desire more opportunities to exist in terms of institutional support. Participating in CEs rarely impacts perceptions of self-efficacy. Respondents identify as resilient and feel the experiences with CEs have promoted professional growth.