Source avec lien : Journal of Patient Safety, 18(3). 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000886
Le phénomène de seconde victime qui se produit après des événements critiques constitue un facteur sérieux pour la sécurité des patients et du lieu de travail. Ces expériences peuvent être évaluées à l’aide du Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST), initialement en anglais, ou des versions traduites et validées en coréen ou en chinois. En 2020, une version révisée a été publiée (SVESTR) avec l’ajout d’items de résilience. L’objectif de cette étude est la validation de la version allemande, le G-SVESTR, dans un contexte multiprofessionnel.
Introduction The second victim phenomenon that occurs after critical events poses a serious factor for patient and workplace safety. These experiences can be evaluated using the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST), originally in English, or the translated and validated Korean or Chinese versions. In 2020, a revised version was published (SVESTR) with the addition of resilience items. The aim of this study is the validation of the German version, the G-SVESTR, in a multiprofessional setting. Methods The G-SVESTR questionnaire was designed according to World Health Organization recommendations. This entails translation, test for face validity, back translation, pretest, expert panel evaluation, and a test in a large population for validity and reliability. We provided an anonymous online questionnaire to physicians, nurses, paramedics, medical assistants, and physician assistants to test our developed tool. Statistics were accomplished using XL-Stats. Results Altogether, 72% (306 of 428) of the participants completed the survey. The mean time for completion was 9.4 minutes. Physician assistants and medical assistants were significantly younger than other respondents. The analysis revealed satisfactory reliability (Cronbach α = 0.844). A principal component analysis showed 11 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Factor loading on distinct dimensions was satisfactory with one exception, the absenteeism item (item 31), which showed cross-loadings and poor factor loading on the absenteeism dimension. The results of the G-SVESTR revealed only some differences between the professional subgroups. Conclusion The G-SVESTR is a valid and reliable testing instrument for the evaluation of second victim experiences in different medical professions.