Evaluation of'the Buddy Study', a peer support program for second victims in healthcare: a survey in two Danish hospital departments.
Adverse events
Emergency medicine
Healthcare providers
Midwifery
Obstetrics
Peer support
Second victims
Support programs
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Apr 2022
27 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
20
12
2021
accepted:
19
04
2022
entrez:
28
4
2022
pubmed:
29
4
2022
medline:
30
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Healthcare professionals involved in adverse events may suffer severe physical and emotional distress in the aftermath. Adequate support is critical to an overall culture of safety for any healthcare institution. This study evaluates a formalised peer support program, 'the Buddy Study', in two Danish university hospital departments. The program consists of a 2-h seminar about second victims and self-selected buddies to provide peer support after adverse events. The study design involved a cross-sectional survey comprised of two close-ended questionnaires evaluating the Buddy Study seminar (Q1) and the Buddy Study program (Q2), along with two open-ended questions and three individual interviews for more elaborate answers. Out of the 250 HCPs employed in both departments, 191 midwives, physicians, and nursing assistants completed Q1 and 156 completed Q2. The seminars were evaluated positively; 91.6% were satisfied with the overall content of the seminar, and 69.1% agreed that insight into how other people may react to adverse events has helped them contain their own reactions or emotions. Assessments of having the Buddy Study program in the department or using or being used as a buddy were more diverse, yet overall positive. Three benefits of the program were identified: the program i) has encouraged an open and compassionate culture; ii) has caused attentiveness to the wellbeing of colleagues; and iii) the self-selected buddy relationship has created a safe space for sharing. Additionally, three challenges or shortcomings were identified: i) although peer support is valuable, it should not stand alone; ii) informal peer support is already in place, hence making a formalised system redundant; and iii) the buddy system requires continuous maintenance and visibility. The overall evaluation of the Buddy Study program was positive, suggesting that this type of formalised peer support may contribute to a rapid and accessible second-victim support program in healthcare institutions. A key principle for the Buddy Study program is that relationships are crucial, and all buddy relationships are based on self-selection. This seems to offer a safe space for health care professionals to share emotional vulnerability and professional insecurity after an adverse event.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Healthcare professionals involved in adverse events may suffer severe physical and emotional distress in the aftermath. Adequate support is critical to an overall culture of safety for any healthcare institution. This study evaluates a formalised peer support program, 'the Buddy Study', in two Danish university hospital departments. The program consists of a 2-h seminar about second victims and self-selected buddies to provide peer support after adverse events.
METHODS
METHODS
The study design involved a cross-sectional survey comprised of two close-ended questionnaires evaluating the Buddy Study seminar (Q1) and the Buddy Study program (Q2), along with two open-ended questions and three individual interviews for more elaborate answers.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Out of the 250 HCPs employed in both departments, 191 midwives, physicians, and nursing assistants completed Q1 and 156 completed Q2. The seminars were evaluated positively; 91.6% were satisfied with the overall content of the seminar, and 69.1% agreed that insight into how other people may react to adverse events has helped them contain their own reactions or emotions. Assessments of having the Buddy Study program in the department or using or being used as a buddy were more diverse, yet overall positive. Three benefits of the program were identified: the program i) has encouraged an open and compassionate culture; ii) has caused attentiveness to the wellbeing of colleagues; and iii) the self-selected buddy relationship has created a safe space for sharing. Additionally, three challenges or shortcomings were identified: i) although peer support is valuable, it should not stand alone; ii) informal peer support is already in place, hence making a formalised system redundant; and iii) the buddy system requires continuous maintenance and visibility.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The overall evaluation of the Buddy Study program was positive, suggesting that this type of formalised peer support may contribute to a rapid and accessible second-victim support program in healthcare institutions. A key principle for the Buddy Study program is that relationships are crucial, and all buddy relationships are based on self-selection. This seems to offer a safe space for health care professionals to share emotional vulnerability and professional insecurity after an adverse event.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35477365
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07973-9
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-07973-9
pmc: PMC9043887
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
566Subventions
Organisme : Odense Universitetshospital
ID : 62-A2929
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Dec;19(6):e43
pubmed: 20513788
Eval Health Prof. 2013 Jun;36(2):135-62
pubmed: 22976126
BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 30;6(9):e011708
pubmed: 27694486
Qual Saf Health Care. 2009 Oct;18(5):325-30
pubmed: 19812092
Int J Qual Health Care. 2019 Oct 31;31(8):583-589
pubmed: 30407515
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010 May;36(5):233-40
pubmed: 20480757
BJOG. 2017 Jul;124(8):1264-1271
pubmed: 27562912
Swiss Med Wkly. 2009 Jan 10;139(1-2):9-15
pubmed: 18951201
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Jan;268:113598
pubmed: 33316570
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 11;18(10):
pubmed: 34064913
BMJ. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):726-7
pubmed: 10720336
J Patient Saf. 2020 Jun;16(2):e61-e74
pubmed: 30921046
Res Nurs Health. 2000 Aug;23(4):334-40
pubmed: 10940958