Citations

Objectives This study identified the prevalence of second victim experience (SVE) in a multidisciplinary sample of healthcare learners and explored personal experiences of trauma and desired forms of support following traumatic patient care events or situations. Method We used the validated SVE Support Tool-Revised and the Physician Well-Being Index (PWBI) to query healthcare learners at a large academic health system across the institution's medical, graduate medical education, and health sciences schools. The survey was open to all healthcare learners from April 8th, 2022 to May 30th, 2022. Here, we report on an analysis of respondents’ fixed responses describing the prevalence and characteristics of SVE. Results Of 2298 potential respondents, 206 answered at least one question (9.0% response rate). Of the 206 respondents, 205 answered questions inquiring if they had been a part of a stressful or traumatic patient care event or situation and 54.1% (111/205) answered in the affirmative. Of this group, 49.5% (51/103) reported feeling like a second victim (SV). The average PWBI of the exposed group was significantly higher (worse well-being) than the nonexposed group (3.4 vs 2.6, P = .0009). The most common forms of desired support for those exposed to a traumatic event and felt like an SV was conversation with peers 95.3% (41/43), family 81.4% (35/43), and a supervisor or manager 67.4% (29/43). Conclusion Findings suggest that many healthcare learners experience SVE and would benefit from connection to desired support strategies. Strategies to mitigate the impact of SVE on professional self-efficacy should be considered by education administrators. We present strategies from the literature and our institution that may be replicated for early identification and support of learners with SVE.

SummaryThe goal of this study was to ascertain the effect of patient body size on clinic‐ or patient‐delayed health care during the COVID‐19 pandemic and factors predicting delay. Primary survey data were collected in August 2021 from 3593 individuals living within the communities near Mayo Clinic facilities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Florida. More people who identified with the higher‐weight BMI categories reported having their care appointments cancelled (62.3%) compared to those who identified with normative weight (38.0%) or underweight (47.7%; p < .001) and reported more frequently delaying their own care (67.9%) relative to those who identified with normative weight (47.0%) or underweight (62.3%; p < .001). Higher‐weight people were more likely than others to report delay was due to not knowing where to get care (UW: 5.6%, NW: 3.5%, HW: 7.0%, pchi‐square < .001), worrying about weight‐based judgement (UW: 2.1%, NW: 2.1%, HW: 4.5%, pchi‐square < .001), and fearing discrimination (UW: 2.9%, NW: 2.4%, HW: 5.5%, pchi‐square < .001). There was no difference across groups in delay due to fear of COVID‐19 exposure. Weight gain was associated with care delay in higher‐weight and normative weight groups. Having experienced more patient‐centred care pre‐COVID was associated with less care delay in the normative weight group, but more care delay in other groups. Higher‐weight people were more likely to have their care delayed by health care providers and to delay care themselves. Patient weight gain and concerns about discrimination and judgement about weight gain may have driven the delay of needed care during COVID‐19.

Objectives In 2018, the Healing Emotional Lives of Peers (HELP) Program was implemented at Mayo Clinic Rochester to guide healthcare professionals (HCPs) after a second victim experience, such as adverse patient events or medical errors. The HELP program was expanded to all HCPs in response to the anticipated stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic. This article aims to describe the rapid expansion of the peer support program and evaluate the effectiveness of peer support provided to affected colleagues (ACs). Methods Quantitative data collected from workshop evaluations, activations, and associated metrics (TPS Self-Assessment, Encounter Form, and AC Self-Assessment) were summarized through standard descriptive statistics using SAS version 9.4 software. Open-ended responses were qualitatively analyzed for iterative themes about the HELP program and associated workshops. Results Between April 2020 and December 2021, 22 virtual workshops to train peer supporters were conducted with 827 attendees. Of these, 464 employees completed the workshop evaluation. A total of 94.2% rated the workshop as excellent or very good. Participants perceived the workshop to be highly effective and felt more prepared to support ACs. Between May 2020 and December 2021, 247 activations were submitted through the HELP Program’s intranet Web site and peer support was requested for 649 employees. Of the 268 TPS Self-Assessments, 226 (84.3%) felt that they provided helpful support to an AC. One hundred ACs evaluated support received, with 93% being “extremely” or “very satisfied.” Affected colleagues appreciated having a TPS provide judgment-free support. Conclusions The HELP Program promotes a culture of safety by helping HCPs process traumatic events. To effectively meet the needs of patients, healthcare organizations need to prioritize the well-being of their employees through interpersonal support.

There is growing recognition that clinical and nonclinical healthcare professionals may become “second victims” following adverse patient events, medical errors, or patient-related injuries. In addition to the trauma-associated symptoms experienced by second victims, unprocessed second victim experience (SVE) can lead to burnout and leaving the healthcare workforce. To better understand the risk factors and support needs of affected healthcare professionals after a SVE, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with twelve staff in obstetrics & gynecology and pediatrics at a large academic medical institution in the upper Midwest of the U.S. Several participants indicated that it was not the patient outcome itself that precipitated the SVE, but associated factors such as moral distress or communication challenges. Participants discussed the role of their work unit culture in post-SVE processing, expressing that units perceived as blame-seeking or where adverse events were not openly discussed, hindered their recovery. While desired support mechanisms were individualized, participants stressed the importance of immediate and proactive support, such as through a peer support program, and long-term support mechanisms for lingering symptoms. As attrition of the healthcare workforce continues to be a significant concern, it is essential that we understand and meet the post-SVE support needs of affected staff, to promote holistic care following adverse patient events.

AbstractBackgroundIt has yet to be fully elucidated how differing populations of obstetric patients adapted to the disruptions in perinatal care and postpartum support from the COVID‐19 pandemic. We surveyed an enriched sample of socioeconomically advantaged patients to understand the influence of COVID‐19 on their perinatal care experience, well‐being, and coping.MethodsWe surveyed pregnant and postpartum patients (n = 6140) at a large academic medical center in the Midwest of the United States using the Coronavirus and Perinatal Experiences instrument in Spring 2021.ResultsThe survey was sent to 6141 pregnant and postpartum patients; 1180 (17.8%) respondents completed the survey, including 256 who were pregnant and 834 postpartum. Most pregnant patients experienced no changes in their prenatal care with 16.5% indicating somewhat worsened care. In the postpartum cohort, 37.5% stated their care had somewhat worsened. In describing influences on stress and mental health, 58.1% of postpartum respondents stated it was moderately, and 17.4% significantly, worse. The pandemic had a somewhat or moderately negative influence for 72.7% of respondents, with 11.0% stating these effects were extremely negative. Both cohorts characterized a range of coping strategies, most commonly, talking with friends and family (76.3%).Conclusion(s)Even among this sample of socioeconomically advantaged patients, respondents indicated that the pandemic disrupted many facets of their medical care and daily life, especially social activities and postpartum support. Our findings suggest that counseling on coping and adaptation strategies for stressors and increased health systems support be part of perinatal care during public health emergencies for all demographic groups.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionally affected historically marginalized populations and their access to resources and healthcare. In times of crisis, authentic community engagement is more important than ever. This study was Phase 1 of a larger 3-phase study to conduct timely community-engaged research with community members to understand the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on historically underserved communities. The objective of this work was to conduct key informant (KI) interviews (1) to understand community organizations perspectives about the role that large academic health centers play as they interface with community organizations to support their work, (2) to leverage KI’s expertise to identify needs and assets within the community, and (3) to inform both Phase 2 (focus group qualitative research) and Phase 3 (survey) of the broader study. Methods: A total of 24 key informants were identified through purposeful sampling and one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted across 4 states using video conferencing. Results: Barriers to access and lack of transparency were highlighted as major issues requiring reform—in particular, aggressive billing practices and insurance barriers exacerbated local distrust of medical institutions. KIs recognized the health institution’s support for testing and vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic, but noted other significant gaps in care, especially regarding mental health support. Although communication with the health institution was consistent for some KIs, others experienced unsustained communication efforts that hindered cooperation and relationship building. Conclusions: Leaders in the community as key stakeholders can provide unique insights into the challenges and potential solutions required to promote health equity, and foster understanding between local communities and healthcare institutions.