Core set of indicators to evaluate healthcare workers support programmes: a consensus-based approach

Abstract Objectives Considering the widespread implementation of support programmes for healthcare workers (HCWs), there is an urgent need to establish a standardised set of indicators for their ongoing assessment. This study seeks to develop a consensus framework for evaluating interventions aimed at supporting HCWs affected by patient safety incidents (PSIs) or other distressing situations, commonly referred to as second victims (SVs). Having a core set of indicators it is crucial for facilitating comparative analyses across different organisations and time periods. Methods A qualitative study was conducted from June 2023 to March 2024. The study involved a multidisciplinary group of members part of the European Researchers Network Working on Second Victims. The consensus-building process utilised insights from a scoping review (phase 0) and a nominal group technique (phase 1) to develop a questionnaire for Delphi Rounds (phase 2). Indicators were rated on a scale of 1-5, with consensus reached if over 70% of participants rated an indicator as both feasible and sensitive scoring above 4. A consensus conference was subsequently organised. Results From an initial pool of 91 indicators, 55 were rated online, with 35 progressing to the Delphi rounds. A total of two Delphi rounds were performed and achieved response rates exceeding 60% and 80% respectively, resulting in consensus on 11 indicators for evaluating SV’ support programmes. These indicators encompass various aspects such as awareness and activation of the programmes, organisational processes and structures, institutional training provisions and assessment of the impact of the programme in the SVs. Conclusions This study endeavors to provide guidance for future SVs’ programs namely in the critical areas of programme’s awareness and activation, structural and process enhancements, and programme’s impact on SVs. Moreover, these indicators are suitable for multiple healthcare contexts and levels of implementation. Key messages • The priorities for evaluation of second victim programmes’ include their impact on healthcare workers, awareness and activation, organisational processes and structures and institutional training. • Utilizing a multidisciplinary consensus approach, we defined a set of indicators that are adaptable to diverse contexts that provide care and varying levels of second victim support implementation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Public Health
Published
2024-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckae144.1660
Primary Topic
Healthcare Systems and Practices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Core set of indicators to evaluate healthcare workers support programmes: a consensus-based approach

Paulo Sousa, José O. Fernandes, Sofia Guerra-Paiva, José Joaquín Mira et al.
European Journal of Public Health
Healthcare Systems and Practices
article

Core set of indicators to evaluate healthcare workers support programmes: a consensus-based approach

Paulo Sousa, José O. Fernandes, Sofia Guerra-Paiva, José Joaquín Mira, Irene Carrillo, Reinhard Strametz, Eva Gil-Hernández
article en

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Considering the widespread implementation of support programmes for healthcare workers (HCWs), there is an urgent need to establish a standardised set of indicators for their ongoing assessment. This study seeks to develop a consensus framework for evaluating interventions aimed at supporting HCWs affected by patient safety incidents (PSIs) or other distressing situations, commonly referred to as second victims (SVs). Having a core set of indicators it is crucial for facilitating comparative analyses across different organisations and time periods. Methods A qualitative study was conducted from June 2023 to March 2024. The study involved a multidisciplinary group of members part of the European Researchers Network Working on Second Victims. The consensus-building process utilised insights from a scoping review (phase 0) and a nominal group technique (phase 1) to develop a questionnaire for Delphi Rounds (phase 2). Indicators were rated on a scale of 1-5, with consensus reached if over 70% of participants rated an indicator as both feasible and sensitive scoring above 4. A consensus conference was subsequently organised. Results From an initial pool of 91 indicators, 55 were rated online, with 35 progressing to the Delphi rounds. A total of two Delphi rounds were performed and achieved response rates exceeding 60% and 80% respectively, resulting in consensus on 11 indicators for evaluating SV’ support programmes. These indicators encompass various aspects such as awareness and activation of the programmes, organisational processes and structures, institutional training provisions and assessment of the impact of the programme in the SVs. Conclusions This study endeavors to provide guidance for future SVs’ programs namely in the critical areas of programme’s awareness and activation, structural and process enhancements, and programme’s impact on SVs. Moreover, these indicators are suitable for multiple healthcare contexts and levels of implementation. Key messages • The priorities for evaluation of second victim programmes’ include their impact on healthcare workers, awareness and activation, organisational processes and structures and institutional training. • Utilizing a multidisciplinary consensus approach, we defined a set of indicators that are adaptable to diverse contexts that provide care and varying levels of second victim support implementation.

European Journal of Public HealthVol. 34(Supplement_3)
Universitat de Miguel Hernández d'Elx (ES), University of Alicante (ES), Hospital Universitari Sant Joan D'Alacant (ES), National School of Public Health (GR), Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat Valenciana (ES), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (PT), National Patient Safety Foundation (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 67%
Healthcare Systems and Practices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.